Director Cunnigham correctly points out that this is not a “right wing agenda movie”. It in fact bashes the Bush administration in a number of ways, and also makes Bush-basher Richard Clarke look like a hero.

That’s because he is. Has anyone else, right up to this coward of a president, had the courage to utter these words: “Your government failed you … and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

And Ann Coulter says those 9/11 widow “harpies” should just shut the fuck up about their dead husbands.

Too bad the Bushies didn’t also listen to O’Neill or Scott Ritter. All dead right, all ignored.

Also (as with the case of the original 9/11 Commission), the film omits some aspects of the story that could have been beneficial towards Bush – including the fact that some involved in the 1993 WTC bombing had significant Iraqi connections. [Obviously, you can’t tell every aspect of a story spanning over 8 years in a single 5-hour movie.]

And the Bushies and their ilk have had significant Iraqi connections for years. So what?

But there is certainly no denying that conservatives are gravitating to this project much more so than the left. Does that make the film “right wing”? Not on your life.

C-SPAN appealed more to conservatives because it finally offered a more neutral alternative to the liberal-biased network news that had been shoved down everyone’s throat until that time. The same dynamic will be at work in this instance.

Liberal media again. Fucking joke. When I hear the laughable term “liberal media” these days, I substitute it with the phrase “tries hard to have some journalistic ethics.” Watch FOX News a bit more, pinhead.

Bush does not come off as a hero here by any means. However, the Clinton administration has clearly been trying to whitewash past history to a much greater extent over 9/11. As a result, a film that truly “lets the chips fall where they may” is likely to have a disproportionate impact on their psyche than the Bushies.

Yeah, that massive Clinton spin machine, operating out of an office in Harlem.

Right now, all left-wing sites are hearing is that “conservative sites” are praising the film – therefore they automatiocally (and wrongly) conclude that it must be a “right-wing hit piece”, and are now calling for a boycott of ABC without having seen it for themselves.

So why don’t you petition the producers of ABC to offer it for free to download and set up a blog where we can talk about it? You knows we po’ black folks don’t have no cable.

But the ignorant partisan backlash by those who haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11″ is only going to get worse once Limbaugh sees this thing and comments on it…Believe me.

Damn straight. So why have you ignorant partisans made that fucking bloviating idiot one of your national heroes?

The connection to the Bush family, however, is somewhat tenuous. Former President George H.W. Bush retired from Carlyle in October 2003. He never invested in any defense deals or any companies that do business with the government and his only role as a Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board was to give speeches at Carlyle events. Meanwhile, while it is true that President George W. Bush served on the Board of Directors of early Carlyle acquisition Caterair, he was asked to leave two years later by one of the founders and has had no personal dealings with Carlyle ever since.

The Saudi Arabian relatives of Osama bin Laden (not Osama bin Laden himself) were also minor investors in Carlyle until October 2001 when the family sold its $2.02 million investment back to the firm in light of the public controversy surrounding bin Laden’s family after September 11. It is claimed that the bin Laden family has publicly disowned the al-Qaeda leader, but privately they have kept in contact with him. It is also claimed that bin Laden has no economic interest whatsoever in Saudi Binladin Group (SBG). While the Carlyle Group did invest on SBG’s behalf, said financial arrangement was terminated by mutual consent.
Hmm. Can you say “vested self interest”? How about “conflict of interest”?
No wonder Osama got away, and no wonder Iraq was used to distract us from the real threat.
Bush could have gone after OBL. Instead, he made the situation worse. Dereliction of duty. War Criminals, every last one of them.
Would someone call the Hague and have all these fuckers arrested? PLEASE?

Don’t believe me, Joe? Having the usual knee-jerk response, rebuttals already bubbling to the surface of your LaBrea mind? Before you start, go read this – yes, that’s right, click on the nice colored text.

In case that article’s too long to hold your shortened attention span:

As it turns out, the Bush misAdministration did actual harm to counterterrorism. I will not speculate on motives, but I repeat: I am damn sick of hearing that Clinton got us into this mess. Clinton fucked up. A LOT. He did not, however, ignore the terrorist problem.

For everyone else, that link is to an article that says that the writer/producer of this misbegotten 9/11 special on ABC is a guy who can’t be trusted to be impartial. Noooo. Also, it details the many, many ways in which Clinton addressed the terrorist issue, and how the Bush administration has, since then, dismantled, underfunded, or outright ignored every piece of intel and every program meant to address the situation. The source material is from the FBI, among others, hardly the “liberal media”.

It should be noted that this is being aired by the same “liberal media” that had Paula Zahn discussing the impending Apocalypse, barely addresses the nearly uncountable illegal acts by the current administration, any of which should result in impeachment and prison in a normal world, and that went batshit crazy over a blow job, giddy with joy that justice would be served any second now by impeaching the guy who got it. Mmm. No bias there.

Goddamn, I’m sick of propaganda, and the willfully ignorant fools who buy into it.

Gee Joe Blow
Clinton authorized and used cruise missiles to get Osama but he escaped. The second time CIA gave him a target opportunity was when Osama met with the foreign minister of Afghanistan in Kabul. He declined to authorize because that would have killed a foreign minister in his own capital. That was during the impeachment hearings. Newt’s goal of preventing the Clinton administration for getting anything done including shutting down the government, financing a full time team of lawyers to get the president, putting the kibosh on any judicial nominees and a spurious purely political impeachment process, had its costs.

IF you’re going to refute something use facts

**Hmmm, Clinton had every chance during his presidency to stop the radical islamists.**
Please enumerate

**He skipped out on defending the country at every opportunity.**
Please enumerate

**It was a good thing that his hands were tied by the republican congress or he would have ruined the economy too. **

That is why with a Republican president and congress we are doing so well now. Given that we have moved from a surplus to a deficit (why don’t you pay up you 25k now)

**I think it was his justice dept’s war on Microsoft that signaled the end of the stock market boom.**

Most likely the dot com era where every idiot with a trading account thought themselves an investing genius. Where all the financial pundit touted Amazon as hi-tech instead of an online catalog that it is.

**Just do a timeline and see for yourself or be an idiot and listen to this meathead fill your brain with lies. Typical left fashion.**

By making a bunch of statements with no backup and then resorting to name calling, you display distasteful habit of spin followed by vitriol the very problem solving approach that got us not this mess in the first place.

**Everyone should thank thank the supremes for not letting AlGore into office.**

Wow so you support the politicization of the judicial branch. Technically they are to adjudicate legal disputes and don’t have the power to “let anyone into office. The Supreme Court’s standing in this case, since it was ruling on a State election law, is very questionable in this case.

**we would be doomed for sure.**

A Faltering economy
Skyrocketing energy prices
Two major nutcases with nukes
An unsustainable war bankrupting the future and impeding our ability to fight anything required.
A world significantly overpopulated and about to face a variety of economic and ecological traumas that will define the state of civilization for the next century or so.
A world at ideological cross roads between faith and rationality, in an era when WMD’s will become the province of lesser states and organizations.
Yeah we’re much better off with a lying c student and bunch of fundamentalist ideologs in charge. We are doomed unless something is done about it.