ABC Plans to Air Bush Propoganda for the 9/11 Anniversary

I don't know about you, but I am damned sick of the right wing nuts exploiting 9/11 for their own benefit. This year they plan to do it again and ABC is hosting it. From Truthout:

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 30 August 2006

The fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks is less than two weeks away...ABC intends to mark the occasion in far more grand a fashion. Starting September 10th and ending September 11th, the network will show a miniseries titled "The Path to 9/11." According to reports from early screenings, the writer/producer of the miniseries, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has crafted a television polemic intended to blame the entire event on President Clinton.

Nowrasteh, an outspoken conservative...spoke last year at the Liberty Film Festival, described by its founders as Hollywood's first conservative film festival. Govindini Murty, actress, writer, and co-director of the Liberty Film Festival, wrote a review of "The Path to 9/11" for the right-wing online news page FrontPageMag.com.

In the review, Murty states, "'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."

FrontPageMag, it should be noted, held a symposium back in May to argue that the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which were never found despite being the main reason for invasion, were actually spirited out of Iraq by Russia on the eve of the 2003 attack...

I mean these guys are absolutely disgusting. Let's remember some facts. The Taliban and al-Qaeda were formed with the help of money and arms sent to them by the Reagan and the elected Bush admnistration. By contrast, Bill Clinton made efforts to kill bin Laden and stop al-Qaeda, though those efforts were attacked by the Republicans in Congress as simply being a distraction from Clinton's sexual affairs. While Gingrich and the Republicans salivated over Clinton's sex life, Clinton actually tried to stop the people who wanted to attack us.

The outgoing Clinton administration tried so hard to warn the incoming Bush administration of the danger al-Qaeada posed, the Republicans accused Clinton of being "obsessed with al-Qaeda." Would that they had listened to Clinton's obsession! Instead, Bush ignored the explicit warning "Bin Laden determined to attack inside America" and went on an extended vacation. THAT is the road to 9/11. Republican incompetence and stupidity leading to nearly 3000 American civilian deaths.

Yet ABC wants to air the right wing revisionism that it is all Clinton's fault? DAMN it! Are we to reward the idiots who got us into this and attack the one president who sought to stop al-Qaeda? No Republican prior to the 9/11 attacks ever tried to stop al-Qaeda. But Clinton did, over Republican opposition. And it took nearly 3000 deaths before the Republicans finally decided that they, too, had better be obsessed with al-Qaeda.

Only they weren't. They still barely lift a finger to stop al-Qaeda and instead invaded Iraq, a nation that never had al-Qaeda ties under Saddam Hussein.

Truthout gives the real story. From the same article:

Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "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," wrote Cressy. "...Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
* Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
* Passenger Profiling: $10 million
* Screener Training: $5.3 million
* Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
* Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
* Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
* Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
* Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
* Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
* Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
* Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
* Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
* Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
* Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
* Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
* Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
* Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
* Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
* Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
* Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
* Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.

THIS is what ABC should be reporting, not right wing lies that ignore the fact that Clinton did all he could to try and stop bin Laden and it has always been the Republicans that stood in his way.

Feel free to Contact ABC and tell them what you think about their serving as a propoganda machine for the Republicans whose failures allowed 9/11 to happen.


mole333's picture

| | | | | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
always right's picture

I am dumbstruck too but

I am dumbstruck too but it’s the fact a liberal organization like Disney (Touchstone) and a left leaning network like ABC are actually going to give a factual presentation of the events leading up to the attack. Let the blame fall where it belongs. Oh, that’s right according to you people Bush blew up the World Trade Center and his missiles took out the Pentagon…Just like he conjured up a hurricane and destroyed the levies in New Orleans. Seems the only ones who have a problem accepting the truth are tree-hugging kooks and other sandal clad left wingers.
As for Clinton doing all he could do to stop Bin Laden, the Somalian’s offered him to Bill on multiple occasions but Clinton took a pass in spite of Interpole warrants. Guess he was too busy getting a BJ and covering up the facts about the slipping economy.


mole333's picture

That is a lie

No...you are repeating a lie that has been exposed long ago. Either you didn't know that or you are being intentionally disingenious.

The 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. It distorts a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. That is a right wing lie that is perpetuated cynically to shift blame away from the person who ignored the warnings of 9/11.

Let's review the facts.

Reagan and the elected Bush funded and armed the people who formed the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

It was when the elected Bush based troops in Saudi Arabia (I don't fault him for that!) that al-Qaeda turned from friend to foe.

Clinton is the ONLY President before 9/11 who made any effort whatsoever to stop al-Qaeda. His efforts to do so got him called "obsessed with al-Qaeda" by the Republicans, something I consider a clear sign that the Republicans should have been listening to Clinton.

The current Bush failed to listen to Clinton's warnings, and failed to follow Clinton's lead and cut off al-Qaeda's funding (because Enron used the same money-laundering schemes as al-Qaeda, so opposed closing those loopholes). The current Bush failed to listen to the warnings from Clinton, the FBI and the CIA that al-Qaeda was prepared to attack within the US.

Reagan and the first Bush aided al-Qaeda. Clinton opposed al-Qaeda and tried (over the objections of Republicans) to cut off their funding. The current Bush ignored al-Qaeda completely until those planes hit.

How can you POSSIBLY blame it on Clinton? He was the ONLY President prior to 9/11 to recognize and try and act on the danger. I am sure you now realize that the Sudan myth is a lie. So there is no reason to blame Clinton.


JJ Ross's picture

Color me

willing to cede the truth of both sides' rhetorical excess and ready to ask, now what?


Weary_G's picture

Gets your facts straight before stating them...

The Taliban and al-Qaeda were formed with the help of money and arms sent to them by the Reagan and the elected Bush admnistrations.

You start of saying you will "state some facts", and then start off with this nonsense. Here's one little clue-bat with which to knock some sense into yourself.

Al-Queda was formed by Bin Ladin, who, you might recall, is a multi-millionaire from a family of millionaires. He was self-funded, moron. Rich Saudi? Oil Money? Billion dollar family construction business? Hello?

The Mujahadeen in Afghanistain thought he was a twit and an annoyance, but the reason they tolerated Bin ladin was because he supplied the cash. Got it? Binny had the cash to operate ON HIS OWN!

Oh, and here's a bonus, extra large bat, painted in day-glow colors so you can't miss it.

How could the "Bush AdministrationS" (your plural) fund Al Queda and the Taliban, if both were around BEFORE the second of the plural Bush Administrations was not even around?

Jeezus! You are going to give zealous partisan fanatics a bad name. Unbelievable...


mole333's picture

Thank you...

THank you for pointing out that typo, though your way of doing it was awfully wordy.

As for the rest, al-Qaeda is a coalition group and was indeed partly formed from Mujahadeen groups that received arms from America. You are right that bin Laden brought ample money with him (which of course represents ANOTHER link to the Bush family) but he did not create a fighting force out of nothing. He formed it out of groups we were supporting.

Bottom line is that pretty much all the problems we are having with terrorism today are Republican creations, either due to direct support (Mujahadeen-derived groups), oil industry connections (bin Laden and Saudi Arabia), or neglect of Clinton's attempts to get bin Laden militarily and to cut of al-Qaeda's finances. Your spittle laced observation of a typo (everyone knows that only ONE of the Bush administrations was definitively elected, after all) in no way changes the fact that Bill Clinton was the ONLY President prior to 9/11 who tried to fight al-Qaeda and he was prevented from doing so by the pettiness and oil industry ass-kissing of the Republican Party.


PorgieTirebiter's picture

Let's be real.....

Living here in the New York area, I am VERY TIRED of Bush Republicans holding 9/11 over Americans heads, and touting the fact that THEY HAVE KEPT US SAFE for five years. How many years between the first World Trade Center attack and the second? Did we see Democrats trotting out to the airwaves claiming, "it has been X years" since we were attacked, so RE-ELECT US!

World wide, terrorists attacks ARE UP, not down. We are not safer, Bush has NOT secured our BORDERS, Bush has NOT secured our ports, and I'm not overly comfortable with the fact I can no longer carry a bottle of shampoo with me when boarding a plane.

Who cares about who STARTED Al Quida with who's money...one thing is certain...the Bush family has so many strings attaching them to the Bin Laden clan it's scary.


Gina's picture

Glad to hear that

It's nice to see a republican admit that. But you're still wrong on one thing... it DOES matter who's money it was.


Fill up our coffee fund

Visit our sponsors

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1688 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

"People say, 'She's so successful' and 'Look at her position as a black woman.' She is a black woman who grew up in Birmingham, Ala., and said that she never experienced a day of racism in her life," Lee tells the April issue of Stuff magazine.

"Condi, stop smoking that crack!"

"I know you love your Ferragamo shoes, but come on. While people were drowning in New Orleans, she was going up and down Madison Ave. buying Ferragamo shoes. Then she went to see 'Spamalot.'"