ABC, the RW sinkhole that gave us "Path to 9/11":

[npincus]

Any Clinton-supporting DUer who is "thanking" ABC today ought to remember the hatchet job they pulled off on th the Clinton Admin in their 1996 production "Path to 9/11".

They are NO friend of yours or ours, and if you want to embrace their ilk you are no better than they are.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

Blunderingly, ABC executives cast doubt on their own film's veracity when they made advance copies available to such political conservatives as Rush Limbaugh but not to Democrats who reportedly requested the same treatment. If it's any consolation to Democrats, however, the film at no point suggests that Saddam Hussein -- whom President Bush has tried to associate with the 9/11 attacks -- was involved in the planning or execution of the attacks in any way.

According to the movie, Osama bin Laden -- now the most wanted man in the world and a terrorist whose role in the 9/11 atrocity is not in doubt -- was virtually within the grasp of U.S. intelligence operatives twice during the '90s, after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Islamic extremists left a truck bomb in the center's underground parking garage -- hoping, the film says, that the blast would knock one tower off its base and into the other.

Weak-kneed bureaucrats declined to act upon the opportunities to seize or kill bin Laden, the film also says. But the docudrama doesn't stop at criticizing generic bureaucrats -- which would at least have helped sustain a nonpartisan aura -- and aims arts specifically and repeatedly at Albright, Berger, then-CIA chief George Tenet and others in the Clinton administration, most of them made to seem either shortsighted or spineless.

Clinton himself is libeled through abusive editing. A first-class U.S. operative played by Donnie Wahlberg argues the case for getting bin Laden while the al-Qaeda leader is openly in view in some sort of compound in Afghanistan. CIA officials haggle over minor details, such as the budget for the operation. The film's director, David L. Cunningham, then cuts abruptly to a TV image of Clinton making his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" remark with regard to Monica Lewinsky. The impression given is that Clinton was spending time on his sex life while terrorists were gaining ground and planning a nightmare.

It would have made as much sense, and perhaps more, to cut instead to stock footage of a smirking Kenneth Starr, the reckless Republican prosecutor largely responsible for distracting not just the president but the entire nation with the scandal.

[zbdent]

1. "It would have made as much sense" - it would have been relevent to show

the Repukes in 1998-1999 screaming about Clinton "recklessly bombing alleged terrorist camps to distract from the important business of investigating a blowjob" ...

and the media's constant playing of the footage of the bodies being drug through the streets of Mogadishu, which laid the foundation for Republicans to be able to attack B.C. on absolutely any military action EVER ...

[Jawja]

2. They should also remember

ABC's "This Week" and Cokie Roberts opening that show with "When is Gore going to CONCEDE" when the lawful automatic recount was just getting started in Florida.

7 years later, I look back on that bias and wonder where these "journalists" were coming from. They played a big role in what has happened to our economy, our military, our security and our honor.

[shayes51]

3. Blame the questioner for the questions, but

blame the candidate for the answers. Obama gave poor answers to questions he should have anticipated.

[npincus]

4. that's your opinion- because HRC wa fiesty and Obama was subdued

in the face of gossipy, silly questions (the first 58 minutes before issues intruded upon the FAUX controversies).