digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama

thinkprogress.org — Richard Clarke -- former "counterterrorism czar" for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II -- explains why scene in the ABC docudrama "Path to 9/11," which makes the claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden, is totally inaccurate and misleading. Clarke is currently a counterterrorism consultant for ABC.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -80/+18"Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11."

    So, did thinkprogress.com ever do this for FarenHype 911?
    • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34What specific scene in Farenheit 911are you referring to?
    • marksheely, on 10/12/2007, -22/+66I think we should be able to hold ABC to a higher standard than Michael Moore.
    • Magma42, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57Or do you mean the actual film Fahrenhype 911 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/) one of a half dozen "Mikal Moor R teh Suk!!!11!!oneeleven!" films produced in the same span of one month released right after Moore's film? The one that had, of all people, Ann Coulter on talking about how much Moore distorts the truth, with the words "No, in fact we do not know what Irony is" crawling across the bottom? That one?
    • xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54The accuracy of a different movie doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of this one.
    • Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21marksheely,

      Why shouldn't we hold everyone to the same standard of intellectual honesty? Bunk stories should be denounced by everyone, not just when it is politically convenient.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -40/+7Clinton admin were indeed at fault for 9/11. The Neo-libs are just hoping that by pointing a shrill accusing finger elsewhere, that they can divert blame from themselves. Clinton was in power for the 8 years that AlQaeda built up into a menace. I used to follow the AlQaeda news stories even before the group became well-known in the West from the African embassy and USS Cole bombings. I remember how anti-terrorist chief Vince Cannistraro used to boast that "we've got Bin Laden in a box" (he meant that they had Osama "trapped and isolated" in Afghanistan, where he "could do no harm"). What a screwed up fallacy that was. Just because Bin Laden couldn't find any safe havens outside of Afghanistan, didn't mean he couldn't plot terrorist attacks from right where he was. But Clinton was exclusively focused on bombing the Serbs, who hadn't ever attacked the US or even threatened to.

      I DESPISE THE NEO-LIB LIARS FOR CLAIMING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE WAS TO BLAME EXCEPT THE CLINTON ADMIN. WHAT TOTAL GARBAGE. TYPICAL PREDATORY LYING TACTICS BY ATTEMPTING TO MANUFACTURE THE TRUTH BY REPEATED ASSERTION.
    • IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16@sanman
      I despise the republicans for making blatantly inaccurate claims without citing any reputable sources and for supporting to brainwash our children with their rediculous hate-spreading religious beliefs in public school. I also hate how they bring in irrelevant, petty ***** such as calling names, 'he said she said,' and outright lack of accepting blame.
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Sanman: Neo-Libs? Hrm.

      That does seem to be your plan. Take the same accusations, replace "Con" with "Lib," "Bush" with "Clinton," ad infinitum. How's that workin out for ya, partner? Now if we could just land our hands on some of that damned 'evidence' everyone's all worked up about...
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2nix
    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Aww... the thinkprogress borg-blog is down...

      Boo hoo...
    • chachie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1lol beautiful I love how pure logic like that incites 53 self loathing emo slime to digg down your comment.

      Thanks for making my night WackyT
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Sanman:

      >I remember how anti-terrorist chief Vince Cannistraro used to boast that "we've got Bin Laden in a box" (he meant that they had Osama "trapped and isolated" in Afghanistan, where he "could do no harm").

      I can't decide if you're a liar, or just have a memory that changes because you like so many people now really WANT to believe something is true.

      Cannistraro actually wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim -- that Osama was NOT in a box, and still a danger. He actually wrote that for the Washington Post in a public article just a few days BEFORE 9/11.

      Naturally the Bush administration ignored that article, too.

      http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/cannist.htm

      Now tell us more how you "hate" the "libs" because they "lie."
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Statement from an ABC Spokesperson
      The Path to 9/11 is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews. The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it’s not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it’s fitting that the discussion continues.

      The following disclaimer will air throughout the movie:
      “The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

      SIgn the petition. => http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The scene in question was not meant to be a direct representation of a failed strike but was an amalgamation of several failed attempts to get UBL.
  • davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -41/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/Clinton_at_Fault_for_9_11
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Was Clinton Pro-Taliban?

      http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25142

      Clinton Whitehouse Tried to Bribe Bush & Co into Endorsing Taliban:

      http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-603
    • nj2005, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@sanman

      Did you even read your second link? You really should it is quite interesting. It points out flaws made by everyone since 1994. As a matter a fact it points out at the end of the document that the Bush Administration basically did nothing to prevent terrorism, and that the Clinton administration had been doing much more to try to prevent it.

      Remember Clinton had very limited power. Whenever he ordered an attack people claimed he was "wagging the dog". He did not have the support of Congress, so he had to be very careful not to do anything that was impeachable (it was already pretty obvious they would impeach him over anything.)

      Everybody made mistakes that led to September 11th, but there was only one administration that could possibly have thwarted the actual plan, and that was the Bush administration. As poor of a president as Clinton may have been, he was no longer in power when the attack was carried out. He had no ability to prevent September 11th after he left office. There was still ample time and more than enough signs that could have prevented it from occurring, but the Bush administration failed.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@nj2005 - again, what crap. Of course I read the link, that's why I posted it. Clearly it shows that Clinton was trying to rope in Bush to endorse the Taliban oil pipeline, started by the Clinton Whitehouse to try and undermine the Russians. Undermining the Russians was a key obsession of US Secretary of State Madeleine Korbel. As a result, the US ended up shooting itself in the foot, by being an original supporter of Taliban who helped get their ball rolling. But let's be clear - this all started before Bush came to Washington. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
    • nj2005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6From the article:

      December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

      Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997]

      Seriously... are you insane? You get Clinton trying to bribe Bush from this part of the article? Most likely this would be the other way around. Usually when politicians suddenly change their mind (as this indicates) it's because special interests bribe them (in this case it appears to be the oil industry).

      How did you manage to miss the following section headers (once again from your article)?

      -------------------------------
      Early 1999: Memo Calls for New Approach on bin Laden; Focuses on State-Sponsorship, Money Trail

      March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican

      December 20, 2000: Clarke Plan to Neutralize al-Qaeda Deferred Pending Administration Transition

      Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism
      -----------------------------

      Also if you read the sections that seem to have damning evidence against the Clinton administration (e.g. Late 1998: Al-Qaeda Leader Located in Sudan, but US Does Not Try to Capture Him) we find its the CIA, Defense Department, or other government agencies recommended against it.

      Clinton obviously could have done more, however looking at the article you linked to it shows that as time passed they got more concerned and more on top of their game, when they left office they tried to pass this on to the Bush administration, who refused to listen.

      Also I did not see the Republicans calling for mandates against the Taliban.

      As for your first article, your guy is a nut. He was all for the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. He even was for them in 1996 when he stated They were "devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries." and he indicated that Taliban takeover would be a positive development." (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 1996 issue). He may have been against them in 1998, but then why did he hold secret negotiations with them on April 10th, 2001?
      (sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher, http://www.ocweekly.com/features/features/rogue-statesman/21591/)

      So please stop trying to blame all of this on Clinton when it is obviously not his fault. You seem to be so concerned with Bin Laden, but have you noticed that he still has yet to be caught by the Bush administration?

  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -23/+47Farrenhite 9/11 was a film shown in theatres. This bit or Bush Propaganda is on ABC...NETWORK Television. Big difference to anyone with half a brain. Moore's film also wasn't disguised as a documentary based on 'fact's' dreamt up by the Right. ABC see's a chance to make some $ off 9/11 and is taking it. Pretty sad, and so are the rest here who see no problem with this upcoming bit of propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of ABC.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -30/+20You might have had a reasonable argument, except you had to call abc nazi's.
    • invader, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14"was a film shown in theatres. This bit or Bush Propaganda is on ABC...NETWORK Television"

      so the fact that it's shown in theatres makes it more likely to be true than something shown on tv? would anyone agree that movies are more directly tied to the consumers' pockets than network television? personally, i would hold them in the same boat for likelihood of 'truthiness' and profiteering..
    • sparkey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Goebbels - wasn't that Timmy's pet turkey in Helen Keller - The Musical?
    • heysuburbia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@invader:

      I don't think ABC vs. Theater was because one was more likely to contain the truth. It's because people have to go to and pay for the movie, where as anybody with rabbit ears can view ABC.

      It's like Howard Stern can say whatever the ***** he wants about anything (his OPINION), but if a news radio show expresses there OPINION it's wrong because it's supposed to neutral and "Fair and Balanced".
    • ochito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@ invader

      I think you just missed the point entirely. The fact that it is on a movie theater, and that its producer is a known firebrand nutjob like Michael Moore means that people with half a brain should know better and take it with not a grain, but a pound of salt. However, when a TV Network, with a reputation to protect as unbiased and fair, does the same thing, it should be held to much higher *journalistic* standards, since it is inevitably seen as backing up the statements on the movie.

      Besides, their own damn advisor is contradicting the whole thing, so what the hell was the point of having him as an advisor then?
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4"ABC see's a chance to make some $ off 9/11 and is taking it."

      Kind of like Michael Moore did?
  • davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -35/+19"Moore's film also wasn't disguised as a documentary based on 'fact's' dreamt up by the Right." You're absolutely correct. It was a propaganda piece he called a documentary based on 'facts' dreamt up by the radical left.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Name one relevant inaccuracy in F-911. Go ahead. I'll wait.
    • DrewClayton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1he called it an op-ed piece

      and this movie is a docudrama

      can't believe everything you see, people, or even expect to be able to...
  • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+79Richard Clarke: "The key scene in this movie is utterly false, and here's why."
    Rightwingers: "yeah but MICHAEL MOORE!!!11!!!"

    Pretty transparent attempt to change the subject.
    • gorobei, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32ABC is using public broadcast frequencies free of charge. They have a responsibility to make fair use of the airwaves.
    • invader, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9ABC is a company and thus has a responsibility to do what makes more money..
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9The subject is that Clinton is the cause of all our ills. A complete Republican monopoly on power for the last 5 years has nothing to do with it. It's not Bush's fault he can't find one man with the backing of the entire non-Muslim world.
    • RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Urusai,

      Clinton did an excellent job with counterterrorism. He gave it top priority, and according to an independent review, had a comprehensive and effective counterterrorist force. OBL was in the top 3 threats in a list handed to the Bush administration. Also plans against OBL were given to Bush administration, who just sat on them until 9/11.

      I don't remember specific details about it, but if you like, you can read up on it in Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them".
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@RandomEngy

      The only problem is your sighting a report from a very left wing media personality as your source for why the right wing is wrong.

      I for one have no problems with Al Franken but I'll believe anything he says as little as I believe something Ann Coulter says.

      With politics as they are in today's age too many prominant people or people who put anything out about it have an agenda. Al Franken is obviously far left leaning and everytime he talks about politics its all about the evil of the republicans and how the right failed and the democrats are superior. Not in those words but that's the feeling I get. I won't trust any "facts" from any person with such an extreme leaning to any side, left or right.

      If you want to use facts to prove your point, submit links or articles from non-biased people who are just trying to show the facts, if any still exist in today's journalistic society.
    • catbertz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4RandomEngy:

      I'm just curious what Clinton's effective responses were to the USS Cole, embassy bombings, and first WTC bombing. I'm sure there were more incidents as well that I can't recall.

      I think each of the attacks I mentioned demanded a serious military response, not a criminal prosecution, and no..IMHO several cruise missiles don't qualify as a serious military response.
    • RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Not all "leaning" writers are created equal. Ann Coulter, for example, is a raving nutball. Michael Moore, a little less so, but still not so great. Al Franken in his books makes a big deal about getting the facts right and presenting it like it is. Example quote:

      "
      "Overall, I give them very high marks," Robert Oaklev, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department told the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger." Oaklev's successor in the Reagan administration, Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly. Bremer, who is currently the civilian administrator in Iraq, told the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."
      "

      Here you can read an excellent article by Franken that shows his dedication to the facts, and pertains to our current discussion:
      http://www.spinsanity.org/debates/20040315-franken.html

      Also from the article:

      "
      Clarke's plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda (Uzbekistan, the Philippines, and Yemen); and, most significantly, scale up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official says in the August 12th article, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

      Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide said in the Time article, "we would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and his national security team decided to turn the plan over to the Bush administration to carry out.
      "

      The plan of course, not acted upon until after the fact.

      catbertz, it's not always that simple, fighting terrorism. Sometimes it's hard to pick out those responsible and actually shut down the organization responsible. You do all you can to punish those responsible and try to make sure it happens again. Others like to invade countries that had nothing to do with it, but I don't think that's the best solution.

      As for finding an unbiased article, I don't know if you can. Any time someone takes a side, even if they're just stating facts, they get labeled as "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Usually the mainstream media just quotes each side a few times and calls it good.
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@RandomEngy

      ... to prove how unbiased Al Franken is you point to a quote from a person and more quotes from Al Franken... Yeah Al Franken thinks he's unbiased and one other person does too. Wow... its a shame that its so obvious that he is biased, I rarely see anything from him so my opinion is formed from the little I've seen, but in that little everything has been an extreme on one side.
  • marksheely, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@davenp35 - are you saying that you see no difference between ABC's responsibilities to the public and Moore's responsibility to the public?
    • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8What responsibility did Moore have? He wanted to make money not give people the truth.
  • Cathy11, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18So davenp355, did you see Fahrenheit 911? What did you find inaccurate about the movie?
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Well, here is Brendan Nyhan's article at Spinsanity about the distortions and deceptions in Fahrenheit 911. http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
      There's also a couple more articles about Moore there, ditto for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and other people on the left and right.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Viper, name me one relevant falsehood in F-911. The site you listed helped prove our point, that F-911 was factual. Thanks for helping the Democratic party :).
  • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33If ABC airs this as it is, Sandy Berger should sue for defamation. I'd say it's a pretty glaring error to attribute George Tenet's erroneous actions to a completely different person.

    Now THAT's what you'd call "revisionist history". My guess is that five years down the road ABC will be airing docudramas that have Colin Powell shooting his hunting buddy in the face with a shotgun, and the rightwingers will praise it's accuracy.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19You mean Sandy Burglar, the guy who "mistakenly" stuffed classified documents down his pants?
    • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You mean Sandy Burglar, the guy who "mistakenly" stuffed classified documents down his pants?
      ---------
      Yes. That guy.

      Not George Tenet.

      You see...they are two different people.
    • hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5chriskzoo: You want to talk about baseball or something? You seem to like changing the subject.
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3That's not true.

      He actually hid the documents in his socks.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Notice how it changes from pants to socks. This was all debunked, of course, and he did admit to accidentally taking photoCOPIES in his bag, not the originals themselves.

      He paid a fine. Rush had an orgasm.
  • zdlatham, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I always wondered what documents sandy berger snuck into or out of the national archives when he got busted.
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9And destroyed. And lied about it. Can you *imagine* the furor if a Bush administration member did this? The hypocrisy is immeasurable. You can compare this to the Plame non-story and the universal Left attack as though, say, someone from the GOP stole and destroyed classified documents and them lied. Oh, wait....
    • Glidedon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, if it was Rumsfeld who was caught we sure would know everything about it and had a special prosecutor too.
    • yankeeblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19actually that never happened. Berger never did stuff documents down his pants.

      He put classified copies of documents in his coat pocket and left the Nation Archives with them.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18989-2005Apr1.html?nav=rss_politics
      "Noel L. Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, said Berger "did not have an intent to hide any of the content of the documents" or conceal facts from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
      "Department lawyers concluded that Berger took the documents for personal convenience -- to prepare testimony -- and not with the intent of destroying evidence"

      Please check all GOP Talking Points at the door. And seriously good try on changing the subject.


  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Really it doesn't matter if Clarke blast the information or not. Once millions of people see it on TV, that will practically be the word of God. Few people will ever hear about the truth, and fewer people will care. The damage will be done. Politicians and news outlets count on that.
    • LaserLine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, if it were only the 'millions' that didn't vote...
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -28/+21a better question is why is anyone listening to Richard Clarke. He was personally responisble for dropping the ball on the whole thing. He was the counterterrorism czar for 12+ years and he failed horribly and yet his opinion still matters?

    please,
    • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3You've been bloacked, Mason Boy.
    • mww2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Wasn't he the one trying to get Bush II to pay attention?
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Richard Clarke - wasn't he the one Kindasleezy kept from talking to Bush II about terrorism because everyone knew terrorists posed no threat to America, because 'axis of evil' rogue states were the only threat?
    • LaserLine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@repins

      No, please get your facts straight. From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timeline_to_War

      April, 2001: The White House. Cabinet deputies meet to review terrorism policy. Richard Clarke warns that the network of terrorist organizations called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, presents an immediate and serious threat to the U.S., and that the U.S. had to target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the Predator drone. Wolfowitz replies that Iraq is just as much a terrorist threat. Clarke says he is unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the U.S. Deputy CIA director John McLaughlin backs up Clarke. Wolfowitz tells Clarke he gives bin Laden too much credit and that he had to have a state sponsor. Clarke replies that bin Laden has made plain his terrorist aims and, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe these people will actually do what they say. Wolfowitz responds that he resents comparing the Holocaust to "this little terrorist in Afghanistan." Clarke replies: "I wasn't comparing the Holocaust to anything. I was saying that like Hitler, bin Laden has told us in advance what he plans to do and we would make a big mistake to ignore it."

      Sept. 4, 2001: The White House. Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke meets with the President to walk him through a proposed National Security Presidential Directive, whose goal is to eliminate bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders. Clarke had asked for the meeting, calling it "urgent," back in January, but only now is allowed to see him. He tells Bush that the use of minimum-wage rent-a-cops to screen passengers and carry-on at airports has got to stop. The President agrees.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So if Clarke had all this great information what did Clinton do with it? The 9/11 hijackers planned, trained and many of them came into the USA under Clarke's nose and the Clinton administration did nothing about it.

      It is also interesting that your link starts the same year that Richard Clarke became Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003

      So I say again, why does what this clown have to say hold any water at all?
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Funny that Clark only refers to this incident in Afghanistan and not the 2 oe 3 times that the Sudan actually offered up bin Laden and they refused. Madeline Albright has even admitted that this offer was made by the Sudan and in retrospect, they would have obviously accepted the offer.
    • jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually, not quite correct. Sudan offered bin Laden to the Saudis, and Clinton "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia (2/15/2002 speech @ Long Island Association's luncheon). Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States.

      Here's the full excert from that speech before it was mis quoted by Sean Hannity:
      "So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

      Even the 9-11 Commission backed this up in their official report:
      "Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

      Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

      Here's the link to the 9-11 Commission document:
      http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

      If you want to see the original article for known right-wing "news" site newsmax, here it is:
      http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919

      You can see where they mis-quoted Clinton in the article and got the facts incorrect.

      I tried to find a direct quote from Albright that said otherwise, but the only thing I could find was some conjecture on another right-wing site (freerepublic), but no direct quotes or interviews.




  • gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11@edverb
    Noooo... Sandy Berger should be indicted for stealing documents from the national archives. Stuffed down his pants, no less.


    My personal belief is that the thing should be aired. If it's true--then it'll stick. If it's not, then it won't.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"If it's true--then it'll stick. If it's not, then it won't."

      You mean like how the lie that Sadahm was in league with al Quaida didn't stick?
  • imrambi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10What about the clip from Clinton saying that he actually passed up Bin Laden because he was a "hot potato."
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8Ssshhhhh. Never let the facts get in the way of a good Dem fairy tale.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Get your facts straight before posting to digg

      On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

      Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

      The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.

      After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."

      In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.
    • briankoenig03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@thespace

      Source? Out of curiosity, not disbelief.
    • jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@briankoenig03

      theSpace's comments are a cut & paste from an interview with Richard Miniter (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp).

      And who is he? He's a neo-conservative writer who some consider an authority on terrorism. He's shown up a lot on Faux news, as well as conservative blogs such as blogsforbush.com and powerlineblog.com.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh sorry, William Cohen on CNN in an interview with Wolf Blitzer I believe. Sorry, just not use to being a 'digg reporter' and having to state my sources
  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -21/+16Alright lets cut the *****, this is all clouding the fact that the economy is great for the upper class and sucks for everyone else. 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. Can't blame anyone else for that, its pinned on him no matter how much you cut it. There isn't any other damn story in the friggin world that gonna change my mind when I approach those voting booths!!!

    By far the worst administration in U.S. history.
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7That's a parody, right? Nobody could actually be that clearly stupid, right? Except for maybe Cindy Sheehan, who now resides in a tree from what I've heard.
    • mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10To say that Bush is to blame for 9/11 because it happened under his watch is asinine...nor should an intelligence community that had been underfunded, understaffed, and marginalized over a number of administrations be blamed. The terrorist are to blame. It's up to the administration in power (at the moment Bush's) to do everything possible to learn from the mistakes that compounded over the course of several administrations...and whether he's going about it properly is certainly arguable...but to blame him for the attack is ridiculous and requires a simplistic and biased point of view.

      Whether or not the claims being made in this movie are valid will come out in time, but Sudan DID offer bin Laden to the Clinton administration on a silver platter, and the administration said "no thanks". That is irrefutable fact.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6@fleischner

      Well I'm glad you provided us with some excellent rebuttals on why this administration has been such a great asset to this country.

      I'm glad you mentioned Cindy Sheehan, just shows us all what level you're on. Go crawl back under the rock you came from.
    • gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12@thespace
      "By far the worst administration in U.S. history."

      I guess there's nothing that can be said to change your mind--as it sounds like you're knee-deep in dogma. As you get older, I hope you start learning about your own American history, and start looking at current events from a historical (rather than pop-culture) perspective.

      Without objectivity, you have nothing. Right now, you have nothing.

      We had HUGE inflation w/ Jimmy Carter. Home mortgage rates were around 18%. Try to imagine that. We had our embassy over-run by a bunch of teenage thugs in Iran. Jimmy stood there with his thumb up his butt, trying to appease them to let our people go. A strong argument could be made that modern terror started *there*. Things were so bad during his administration that people came up with a "Misery Index”. Carter even coined the term “the great malaise”—which described his presidency.

      To suggest that terror started on 9/11, and that one person is accountable is just a laughable and dogmatic presumption. It was also a paradigm shift in terms of our thinking in terms of national security; had someone come out on 9/10 and cried wolf (democrat or republican)--it just wouldn't have been heeded. To a certain extent, we all had our heads in the sand—as did the Clinton administration, and those before him.

      I don't mind partisanism--but not when it comes to national security. Not when it comes to the life of my daughter and family. I wish democrats would stop trying to artificially polarize the situation, while banking on America's defeat as their political position toward regaining political power. It's short-sided, selfish, and ultimately against what is best for the USA.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5You've got to be kidding me? I do have objectivity, unfortunately I've weighed the facts and made a decision. Your reference to Jimmy Carter has little to do with current U.S. policy altough probably based upon it in historical context.

      And no, not one man is accountable for 9/11, but it did happen on his watch. And more importantly, why are we in Iraq again? Oh ya, that's right, 9/11.

      Also I'm not a democrat.

      Good points though, I shouldn't have been so polarized in my comments. Next time I'll bitch a bit more.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4@thespace - what crap, 9/11 happened barely months into the Bush admin tenure, so it's Clinton who's responsible. Just like how the Clintonites try to blame Bush for a recession which clearly showed its start prior to Bush assuming office. JUST LIES HOPING TO BECOME TRUTH BY REPEATED ASSERTION.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yeah, listen to sanman.
      Clinton should have gone all vigilante in the summer of 2001 and takin care of it. Everyone knew bush was a puppet. It's all Clinton's fault for not forcing a third term.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/

      This video was taken in 2000, prior to Bush taking office. We must be Americans, first and foremost. Pointing fingers has gotten our country nowhere. As it stands, the hunt for Bin Laden has lasted longer than the US's involvement in World War II. I think if we cut the Democrat/Republican crap and dealt with the ***** problem, we could move on as a country. People like you need to shut the ***** up and be an American before you're a partisan.
    • gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@DCMacHead
      "As it stands, the hunt for Bin Laden has lasted longer than the US's involvement in World War II. "

      Are you frickin' kidding me? Please tell me that you're 8 years old, and have yet to have a history class. While we may have kicked ass and forced the krouts and nips to surrender, we occupied their land for *decades*. Tons of germans escaped to south america. Many japs got out of their punishment so they could help us w/ our jet programs.

      Our involvement in world war II wasn't from 1944 to 1945. It was from 1941 till the fall of the Soviet Union.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ gjscds

      The U.S. entered WWII on 12/8/1941 and the last German forces surrendered to the Allies on May 7, 1945. So it took 1,246 days before the enemy "hollered 'nuff" in the European theater.

      The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945. That would be 1,345 days from start to finish. So it took 1,345 days before the enemy in the Pacific "hollered 'nuff".

      Fast forward to present. The U.S. set plans in motion on 9/11/01 (I know this because I have a family member that was deployed to an undisclosed country the evening of 9/11) and today it's 9/6/06. That's 1,821 days and to this date, our soldiers are getting shot at on a daily basis.

      Our soldiers were not actively being shot at on a daily basis post-surrender in 1945. To date, the U.S. has successfully overthrown two governments and re-established some semblance of democracy, but our soldiers are still being shot at. Here's a rule for you: If you have to wear a helmet, body armor, drive around in an armored vehicle out of necessity for your safety, sounds like our soldiers are still actively engaged in defeating an enemy despite assertion of victory. I have no doubt we'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time stabilizing both countries and we should be. In the wake of the Afghan war against the Soviets, when the Soviets left, we patted them on the back, said "nice job guys", and left without cleaning up the mess. The genius of the Marshall Plan was that we cleaned up our mess and created the world's two largest economies from scratch. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT an option at the moment.

      I blame that on our political leaders who refuse to put politics down and be Americans, rather than Democrats and Republicans, when confronting terrorism. That behavior encourages enemies of the U.S. and the civiized world. Politics MUST stop at the water's edge. And the American media needs to consider what their reporting does to the cause of peace--as it stands, they seem hell bent on making Bush look bad, reporting Muslim propoganda as fact, and stringing this out longer than it needs to be.
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Get out early, lie hard, hope it sells -- Has he seen the film? If I had been terrorist czar for the proceeding 8 years, you know, the guy on top of the ball, the one who was responsible for missing all the Clinton era warm-up pitches, I think I would be quite this time around. Anyone who believes that Clark isn't partially to blame for the whole 9/11 disaster answer me this, what exactly did the Clinton terrorist czar do anyway?

    I like the argument, lefty lies and propaganda good, the truth sucks.
    • mriegger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So post a link to the WSJ or the Economist that indicts him then.
  • dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh praised this movie, he got a special preview DVD. He said it really lambaste the Clinton Administration.
    • yankeeblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10when will people like Rush on the frightwing get over Clinton? Hasn't it been six years?
      I think Democrats stopped blaming anything on Bush I in 1993, when they took back the office.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ yankeeblue

      Clinton had a clean shot on Bin Laden in 2000 and didn't take it. We're still dealing with the ramifications of inaction today. I don't hear members of the present administration criticizing Clinton. In fact, I don't remember former Presidents criticizing Clinton's foreign policy on U.S. or foreign soil while Clinton was President, either.
  • gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Move on...nothing to see here...
  • snurfle, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1It alway's amaze's me that you can tell whitch poitical party people are from buy how badly there grammer and spelling's are.

    If ever letter s has a postrify before it, then there big fat lib's.
    If they use word's with more than two sillibals than there republican's.
    • bonked, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Why am I thinking about Alanis Morrisette all of the sudden?

      la la.... a little too ironic.... la la
    • uethello, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3hahahahahahahahahahahahah

      Breathe

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      '
      Oh GOD, my stomach hurts. I REALLY hope you're no older than 7 or 8. You retard

      sillabilliballs. Christ, you knew there was a "y' in there somewhere, right?

      hahahahaha
  • mww2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I recall an August 6, 2001 PDB... What was it called? Hummh. Whatever! Down the memory hole.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/

      I stumbled upon this video footage. It was taken on Richard Clarke's watch. The government thought it was a good idea to track OBL with a Predator drone in 2000 because he was a known threat. The video clearly shows Osama Bin Laden in the middle of Afghanistan. Our government failed to kill OBL when it had a chance because it was concerned about the political ramifications of "taking a pot shot" at him and possibly killing "innocent civilians" in the process.

      To win against terrorism, we must put the politics and grandstanding aside and confront the threat as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.
    • mriegger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thats a tricky situation. Killing innocent civilians helps Bin Laden's cause and feeds him new recruits. Obviously killing the man with minimal civilian casualties is the best option, but its damn hard and not a sure thing. Tough call, especially pre-9/11
  • Endomorphic, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Um...thats contrary to my expierence snurfle

    .. repubs = grass roots = rednecks...

    Dems = liberal elites = LITERATE AND EDUMACATED...
  • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20Not a single rightwing argument in this entire thread is based on the merits. They are all character attacks. There are a dozen apparatchiks attacking Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Michael Moore, other posters...but not ONE refutation of the facts in the article.

    When you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. When you have the law on your side, bang on the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, bang on the table.

    The rightwingers are doing nothing but banging on the table in this thread.

    Arguing every other rightwing shibboleth under the sun does not change the central argument -- that the pivotal scene in this movie is a complete fabrication. And by promoting this fabrication, they are spreading lies about the thing that must never, ever be politicized.
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Because Richard Clarke is complaining about one scene in a 4 hour movie that none of us have seen yet? What's the response supposed to be? "Based on not seeing the scene in the movie yet, it seems accurate to me" ?

      A response on the merits of his argument is premature.

      You haven't seen the movie either. Why aren't you defending Richard Clarke's remarks on the merits of what he said? Tell us how you know that the scene isn't factual.

      There are 2 choices based on the information available to us now:

      1. Trust Clarke
      2. Don't. (I choose this one.)

      Some people are saying why they don't. I honestly don't see how you have a reasonable point.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The second comment on the linked thinkprogress story sums it quite well:

      "Hulk not like ABC fictionalize 9/11. Hulk get angry. Hulk smash rightwing lies!"
      (Comment by Hulk — September 5, 2006 @ 10:17 am)
  • jebo4jc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Somehow I doubt ABC is going to spread complete lies on their network. Their credibility is at stake....if they are exposed as frauds they will never be viewed the same way again, much in the same way Dan Rather is viewed now.
    Truth is, we don't really know what evidence this documentary uses until we see it....I will hold my judgements until then.
  • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15To all the people arguing that one or the other party is to blame:

    Wake up. This has nothing to do with either party. Our entire government, both "liberals" and "conservatives", are a corrupt, incompetent bunch of asses. You are only further delving into the false dichotomy set up by the media when you argue that either democrats or republicans are responsible. There is no "responsibility" to be placed squarely on either side. The fact remains that our government will remain a perpetual election cycle where results don't matter. Both parties use spin to conceal facts and inadequacies, and pander to corporate interests... and will continue to do so, at least as long as gerrymandering and private campaign finance exist.

    America's government was designed to not have life-long politicians who are out of touch with reality running the show. You were supposed to serve a term or two, and get booted out by someone better in a fair election, and return to your humble life of farming tobacco and raping slaves.

    Of course, don't blame the congressmen themselves... we are to blame. Private campaign finance, soft money, and gerrymandering have assured that very few of the nation's congressional districts have real challenges coming up in the midterms.

    The end result? Arguments like this:
    A:The republicans have done a ***** job on terrorism. It's Bush's fault.
    B:I'm sure the democrats would've done worse. Besides, it's Clinton's fault.

    A:The republicans have done a ***** job by going into Iraq.
    B:The democrats would've done worse.

    Both A and B may be right. But what the hell does that prove? Where's the improvement? Where's the republicans defending the administrations current actions instead of reverting to Clinton bashing? Where's the democratic party that actually stands up for what democratic voters believe in?
    • gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5@mikesherov

      Great post...

      Ok--here goes. I think Iraq is a good idea, and I support it. It has nothing to do w/ UBL, but rather establishing a beach head of freedom, free market, and capitalism in a part of the world that rather backwards.

      Will it work? I honestly don't know. But I feel better knowing that we're at least trying to take it to the enemy, rather than just sitting on our butts waiting to get hit again.

      Ok--let the flaming begin!
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Yes! Yes! And lets make 'BEACH HEADS OF FREEDOM' in Canada, Mexico, and Australia next!

      That was the funniest (and most lame) term I've heard you guys come up with. Running short of material to excuse Iraq from what it really is, eh?
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6So the counter terrorism czar who could have caught OBL but didn't claims that a documentary showing that he could have caught OBL but didn't is inaccurate...

    What else would you expect him to say...
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41. He who controls the past, controls the future... right? The "idea" that the right wing media wants to portray is that none of the current problems are their fault. And who do they want to point their fingers at specifically? Democrats! Of course!

    Bloody propaganda. And a blatant diversion to the fact that 5/6 years on and the Bush administration has done basically ***** all about Al-Qaeda.

    2. It's funny, I'm starting to see much in common between the conservative/republican commentors here on big and the ultra defensive Apple fans. They certainly express themselves similarly.

  • greggish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Regardless of what Clark says, the key thing is the alleged conversation between Sandy Berger and the CIA agent...

    "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."

    --If this event was completely fabricated don't you think Sandy Berger would be out there denying it left and right?
  • MasterLJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), 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.”

    If the above is true, it was an illegal act. It was imposed by the Carter/Ford/Reagen administrations and repealed directly after GWB took office, that targetting people for assassination was illegal. This means it was illegal for Clinton to do so at the time.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf#search=%22Carter%2C%20assassination%20of%20foreign%20leaders%22

    I'm not a GWB fan, and I do believe Clinton was a strong President, but illegal is illegal. In any case, it's damned if you did, damned if you didn't as far as Clarke's rebuttal goes.
  • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Richard Clarke is a proven liar. Over and over again he's been proven to make stuff up.
  • gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Actually, if you read Ghost Wars by Steven Coll (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200076?v=glance), he goes a very non-partisan view of how Clinton handled UBL. While he faults Clinton for not giving the CIA the legal authority to just kill UBL, Clinton did treat UBL as a major threat and tried to hit him during the Lewinsky affair, but the problem then was that he was in the middle of the impeachment talk.
    The difference is, when Clinton was trying to deal with National Security, the GOP wanted to divert the public's attention to Clinton's sex life (successfully). Now, however, the GOP wants to divert people's attention away from National Security and focus on John Karr's eating habits and legislating morality. You know what other countries tries to legislate morality? Fundamental Theocracies.
  • sneakerchad, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Typical Republican stratagy... when the facts are against you just discard them and make ***** up. That is all they know how to do. Pathetic.

    p.s. So much for "liberal Hollywood."
  • dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There's a long section in the 9/11 Commission report that seems to describe this incident:

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

    ""Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be."
    ...
    Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that 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.30

    The CIA's senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. Tenet's deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the CIA assessed the tribals' ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S. officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was canceled, Schroen described it as the "best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice."

    You can decide for yourself exactly how accurate ABC's portrayal of the events are. I would note that Clarke was involved in the incident, so he is not some impartial third party observer. I'd also note that his comments on the matter are presented in a deceptive way.

    "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."

    The scene described by ThinkProgress makes no mention of *anyone* "seeing" OBL. Nor is Masood mentioned. Clarke may be discussing different scenes in the movie, but ThinkProgress doesn't have much of an excuse. "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." Well, it was in the 9/11 Commission report.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Clinton did some bombing
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/
    http://www.slate.com/id/2098009/
  • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2How fast you people forget history.. let me re-educate you:

    We all know that Clinton was a terrorsit himself and was a blood brother of Osama bin Laden.

    This all happened while our dear leader, George W Bush, was doing the work of God in India, helping abandoned, Aids infected children.

    The documentary is wrong... Hillary Clinton caused 9/11.

    Stop questioning history and start being patriotic!

    Please Re-Eelect George W. Bush for a third term.
  • reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As a life long Apple user (since 1983), I've never owned a PC and have no plans to. However, outside forces have got me reconsidering.
    Observe:
    Bill Gates, universally known as evil, is going to spend the rest of his life giving away his money to the needy. Pretty good, right?
    Steve Jobs has become the single largest shareholder in Disney. Disney/ABC is about to jam some Bush loving, Clinton bashing piece of propaganda down our throats on Sept 10 & 11 to exploit the horror of 9/11, so as to retain one party GOP rule in this nation . Why? I have no idea.

    Steve Jobs and the Moushouse are shilling for the GOP, while the absolute 90s personification of "Big Business", Bill Gates, has become a humanitarian? What the hell is going on?

    As a lifelong Apple user it pains me to say this, but: No more Apple products for me as long as Steve Jobs has his companies working for the GOP.

    Sorry.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is a time to be a partisan and there's a time to be an American. When facing terrorism, we must put aside our partisan ideologies and confront threats. Politics must stop at the water's edge.
  • reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Could you please cite for me a single example in this "film" that is critical of Bush in any way whatsoever?
    For example, does the film touch on his ignoring the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to Strike U.S."?
    Is there any mention of Bush sitting, stunned in a room full of children, completely failing to lead on 9/11? Or how he spends the rest of his day on 9/11 flying around the country not knowing what to do or how to lead?
    Is this film balanced in anyway whatsoever, or is it just GOP propaganda?

    Did GW bush make a SINGLE serious speech on terrorism or propose ANY legislation whatsoever regarding terrorism prior to 9/11?
    We KNOW that Clinton did and that the GOP congress tried to stop him every step of the way.
    If Bush did anything AT ALL about terrorism prior to 9/11 please prove it with, GASP!, facts.

    Thank you
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No. Not until it airs on TV next week and we can watch it.
    • reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Koh,

      DVD screeners have already been sent out to right wing "journalists". ABC has opted not to give DVD screeners to anyone in the press who is, say left of Rush LImbaugh.
      Hmmmm.....

      Wonder why?
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No.

      And we're still not going to tell you how the movie is critical of GW Bush until we can see the movie.
  • reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Could you please cite for me a single example in this "film" that is critical of Bush in any way whatsoever?
    For example, does the film touch on his ignoring the PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to Strike U.S."?
    Is there any mention of Bush sitting, stunned in a room full of children, completely failing to lead on 9/11? Or how he spends the rest of his day on 9/11 flying around the country not knowing what to do or how to lead?
    Is this film balanced in anyway whatsoever, or is it just GOP propaganda?

    GW Bush never made a single speech or proposed a single piece of legislation regarding terrorism prior to 9/11. Clinton did, and we KNOW that the GOP congress tried to stop him every step of the way.
    If Bush EVER introduced a piece of legislation regarding terrorism prior to 9/11, please prove it using, GASP!, facts.
    (NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE GOP: this word "fact" that I am sure you are unfamiliar with refers to a universally undisputed truth that is verifiable to be accurate. A "FACT", contrary to GOP belief, is NOT the B.S. that drips from the mouths of the talk show hosts and entertainers that lead you people. e.g. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or any of the talk show hosts employed by FOX "News".)
    Can you do it?
    Can you prove, without GOP hate speech, that Bush ever introduced a single piece of legislation regarding terrorism prior to 9/11? (No excuses now, 'cause that what's you people like to do.) Gave a single major policy address on the issue? In anyway pushed for any other proposal before the congress to stem the tide of terrorism and stop the attacks of 9/11?
    The answer is no.
    but goodluck trying....
  • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/

    The story above has footage taken from a Predator drone taken in the fall of 2000 which clearly shows Osama Bin Laden. From 1998 to 2000, Richard Clarke was the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. The U.S. knew he was a thug, knew where he was and did nothing about it ot of concern for killing several "innocent civilians" who were in Bin Laden's immediate proximity. Unfortunately, that lack of foresight in the fall of 2000 has led to the situation that we find ourselves in today.
  • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4enough with the thinkprogress links. All these complaints about convservative spam but this is okay?
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I agree, we can swap blog posts all day long and all we're going to agree on is that Michael Moore is fat and George Bush has problems enunciating. See, we share common ground--let's all be friends!
  • dsmeryage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sandy Berger spent a few days at the National Archives stuffing the original documents and copies thereof in his pants which would have incriminated the Clinton administration regarding this issue concerning their neglect for not following through. He got little more than a slap on the wrist in punishment.
  • Jerichop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Since ABC seems to like pulling old cows out of the ditch, how about that time in history when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with that dangerous terrorist and dictator Saddam Hoessein?! Must have been Clinton's fault, right?! Every lie in this terrible time is worth a WMD in someone's butt.
  • DrewJD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I'd agree with Marksheehy at the top of this page... Michael Moore doesn't hold a free-no-payment government license to broadcast subject to the FCC rules (if any remain (rules))... Any network that doesn't fulfill the requirements of its license (Which again: ABC, CBS, and NBC pay (as far as I know) no annual fee for the renewal of their license: we've always had FREE airwaves, now we have BIASED FREE airwaves... sadly, there's no chance that a Democratic candidate could survive a campaign season trumpeting 'Reform the FCC and the Networks'... they'd be SwiftBoated faster than Kerry ever was... Networks today will take a Dem with a speeding ticket 23 years ago, and scandalize that candidate out of a race: a Republican, in a similar situation, will be praised ad infinitum...
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately, we no longer have an "equal time" provision. This was destroyed in George's first term by Colin Powell's kid.
  • NotaSlickFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dick Clarke was the supposed "terrorist czar" in charge of assessing and preventing risks from terrorist attacks against this country and our overseas assets during the most critical years leading up the abomination of 911.
    When he was handed Bin Laden in a basket why did he let ‘ol Slick get away with, well, letting Bin Laden get away--so many times? Bin Laden was not in our gun sights only once but several times under Clinton's regime. Clarke, if he had any morals at all, should have screamed to high heck about 'ol Slicks refusal to take charge and eliminate the scourge named Bin Laden.
    He didn't, and now days he is trying to paint the failure to stop 911 b4 it happened on President (Constitutionally elected) Bush.
    He (Clarke) and Slick's failures cost several thousand lives--PERIOD. Three years b4 the 911 attack, good old Al "I invented the internet" Gore, chaired a commission which came to the conclusion that terrorist groups were using American schools of aviation to train, fly, and use commercial aircraft as missiles to kill Americans. What actions did he and 'ol Slick take regarding these findings? None. Nada.
    One final thought: What “classified documents” did Sandy Berger steal from the National Archives regarding the 911 investigation, and why? CYA; ‘ol Slick and co-prez Sliccary administration.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan defended the miniseries, telling the Post, it is a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

    sounds like Fahrenheit 9/11 and big surprise the Left is all upset....cry me a friken river
  • flabbergast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Given that 30% of Americans still believe (wrongly) that
    Saddam Hussein actually has something to do with 9/11, ABC as
    the Children's TV, would do much better to set the record straight
    on this warmonger administration rather than tarnish its cred
    by propagating more lies on a major TV network.

    Are there anti-ABC protests that are being organized to make ABC do the right thing?
  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 With all the hullabaloo about this "fictional docudrama", and the concerted effort by liberals to prevent the public from viewing it, I wonder when liberalism became so fearful of having their ideology challenged.

    This outrage from liberals isn't about whether this docudrama is the truth or not. It is about protecting the tenets of an ideology; an ideology that apparently cannot withstand a television program that runs contrary to it.

    If this was about the truth, and the truth only, then we could have expected that these liberals that are trying so desperately to keep the public from seeing this program would have been equally as outspoken when Michael Moore released his lie ridden and fact-twisted fabrications, "Bowling For Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 9/11". But of course, because Moore's movies fit comfortably into the liberal ideology, there was not only no outcry for the truth from these liberals, but Moore's movies were embraced by them with enthusiasm.

    F**king hypocrites.
  • NotaSlickFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2IronDioPriest
    Right on. You said so much truth in such a brief space of print. Excellent!
  • deanmeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2READ THIS:

    An ABC miniseries finally pays as much attention to Bill Clinton's eight years before 9-11 as the Democrats have to President Bush's eight months. Critics who blame Bush for missing Osama bin Laden are missing the point.

    It's understandable the Clintonistas and President Clinton are upset about the two-part ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" to be broadcast Sunday, concluding on the fifth anniversary of the al-Qaida attack on America on Monday.

    Based on the 9-11 commission report and ABC News correspondent John Miller's book, "The Cell," the film strips away the conventional wisdom that somehow the fledgling Bush White House was responsible for 9-11 through neglect or indifference.

    The film strips bare the Democratic talking points, exposing them for the fraud they are, accurately depicting the chances the Clinton White House missed to kill or capture bin Laden and the barriers they put up to connecting all the information.

    It starts with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, which the Clinton administration chose to treat as a law enforcement matter and not the first shot in al-Qaida's war against America. That, the film shows, is where the path really began.

    One objection to the miniseries came from former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, last seen stuffing classified documents from the National Archives down his pants. He calls the scenes involving his character in an aborted effort to capture bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania "complete fabrications."

    The film portrays an incident in which Berger in essence told a CIA and Northern Alliance team in Afghanistan, literally just feet away from bin Laden, that if they wanted to grab him they'd have to do it on their own, without official authorization or backing.

    So they didn't, one of three botched chances to get bin Laden.

    As Clinton guru Dick Morris relates, this first missed chance to capture or kill bin Laden came in February 1998, when "Clinton's aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama." The plan would have used Afghan tribesman to capture the al-Qaida leader for a later trial in the U.S.

    Believe it or don't, Clinton's aides worried that bin Laden might be killed in the process, making it look like a political assassination.

    According to the 9-11 commission report, they were worried of "recriminations" in the event "that bin Laden, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."

    The second chance came on Aug. 20, 1998, in the famous "wag the dog" attack at the height of le affaire Lewinsky, when cruise missiles were actually fired at a bin Laden encampment in Afghanistan. The problem was that Clinton ordered that the Pakistanis be told of the attack, lest they think it was an attack from India.

    The news was leaked, and bin Laden dodged our bullets.

    The final missed chance came in May 1999 when the CIA reported bin Laden would be in Kandahar, Afghanistan. As the 9-11 commission report said: "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence could meet that standard."

    It was the Clinton administration that could have put Osama bin Laden out of commission.

    It was under Clinton that Americans were killed by terrorists on three continents without a meaningful response.

    It was under Bill Clinton that we left Somalia in disgrace after dead Americans were dragged through the streets, giving bin Laden all the proof of our lack of will he needed.

    And it was Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, who created the wall of separation between the FBI and CIA that kept us from connecting the information and preventing 9-11.

    What's the word that describes all this? Ah, yes, incompetence.

    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know, it's really dizzying how stupid your post is. I could go through it and give you a point by point rebuttal and corrections (like your misquote/out of context quote of the 9/11 commission which contradicts your premise itself) but it's just so shockingly stupid that it's not worth the energy.

      Clearly you're cutting and pasting it from some source which is near functionally retarded.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.