Article

2006-09-10 Home Front: Politix

Behind The Clintonoid Protests About the 9/11 Miniseries

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So the ABC scene is a composite and not correct, just like the Dems said. But alas, the Dems only stated half the truth. If it was factually correct the whole damn movie would be decision after decision not to strike UBL and the movie would be called Groung Hog Day!!!

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-10 08:55|| 2006-09-10 08:55|| Front Page Top

#2 It's not a 'protest', it is now censorship. Welcome to 1984 care of the Donks.

Posted by Glavirong Snosing9178 2006-09-10 09:11|| 2006-09-10 09:11|| Front Page Top

#3 This is about more than Clinton's legacy, or whether his "law enforcement approach" to terrorism was flawed: what it's about is that the Democrats want to return to those flawed, ineffectual policies that encouraged the 9/11 attacks.

If the Dems retake the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, only three questions remain: How many of our cities will get nuked? Which ones? And when?

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-10 09:46|| 2006-09-10 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 DD - AND the scuttling of the Hildabeast's POTUS run

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-10 10:35|| 2006-09-10 10:35|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah, it's definitely about that, too!

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-10 10:48|| 2006-09-10 10:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Redstate is showing clips of the "disputed" scenes. Worth a look (even tho I'm in the middle of the Cowboy's game, well I did look at them before the game started)
http://www.redstate.com/911clips

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2006-09-10 17:14|| 2006-09-10 17:14|| Front Page Top

#7 once out and available on the net, all Clintonoid efforts merely pick at the scab and make people want to see the uncut version. Good job, Donks!

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-10 17:27|| 2006-09-10 17:27|| Front Page Top

#8 In his time, a bland, mediocre and dishonest Presidency. Never liked the way he speaks either, not quite completely coherent or sounded convincing.

Posted by Duh! 2006-09-10 17:34|| 2006-09-10 17:34|| Front Page Top

#9 I saw those clips at Redstate last night, and I can certainly understand why the Clintonistas went ballistic-- especially Madeleine Albright. I plan on watching the whole thing tonight, and I'll be paying attention to whether ABC has redacted any of that stuff to appease the Clinton crowd.

But it's not about who was wrong about terrorism, back then; it's about who would still be wrong about terrorism now, if they were allowed back in power.

Never again.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-10 17:36|| 2006-09-10 17:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Oh, by the way. I think that Bill Clinton was the most corrupt and dishonest President we have ever suffered through in this country during my lifetime. If I had to say something nice about him I would say that he is more honest than his wife, and cuter. Well, that's something, I guess.

From the bio of Neal Boortz

Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-10 20:33|| 2006-09-10 20:33|| Front Page Top

#11 America will change because of this. When you can't be there, modern film making can put everyone in the action and cause a group think like never before. This will do it. First, Clinton and the donks will become more insignificant. Bush and Rummy should get some brass out of it, and the people should become more focused. I truely hope that ABC does not edit out any of these facts. It's not time yet, but it is time to prepare.
We just may see a republican landslied in November.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-10 21:21|| 2006-09-10 21:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Richard Clarke, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirates to express his concern

Hollywood is a friend of the Clintons. So I can't help wondering why they would allow this to air. Could it be that even more damaging information is destined to come to light and the real purpose of this show is to get this watered down version into the public conscious before a more damaging truth comes out? One need not stretch too far to wonder if Richard Clarke or Sandy Berger are on a par with George Galloway.

Most likely, Washington incompetencet was indeed the path to 911. But if we get more damaging information about key players in the near future - I will think that the purpose of this show was not to indict the Clinton Administration, but rather to provide it cover by getting this story line into the national conscious first.

And why did Sandy stuff those docs into his pants?

Posted by Clereling Cruns6778 2006-09-10 23:45|| 2006-09-10 23:45|| Front Page Top

#13 in fact the more I think about this, the more I realize we are being played for fools. How exactly I'm not sure. But does anyone here really think that the scenes cut matter in any way? Then why bother to cut them? Maybe it was all just hype - or maybe the cut something else and then played the bloggers for fools by providing them with the "cut scenes". Charles Johnson and all of the other bloggers would not have the cut scenes unless ABC allowed them to. Nobody would dare take on the copyright lawyers at ABC.

Like I said, maybe it was all just manufactured hype - but come on - the cut scenes don't matter. So one way or another - ABC is playing us for fools.

Posted by Clereling Cruns6778 2006-09-10 23:55|| 2006-09-10 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:55 Clereling Cruns6778
23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:45 Clereling Cruns6778
23:42 anonymous2u
23:40 Zhang Fei
23:37 anonymous2u
23:35 Zhang Fei
23:26 SR-71
23:22 anymouse
23:21 anymouse
23:18 anymouse
23:16 Zenster
23:15 Dave D.
23:10 Pappy
23:04 Zenster
23:03 Pappy
23:02 ed
22:56 DMFD
22:54 3dc
22:51 Pappy
22:38 Barbara Skolaut
22:33 Barbara Skolaut