Ms. Neumann: Such venom from someone who hasn't seen the program yet. Are you sure your an attorney? I remember something about innocent until proven guilty. I will wait until an unbiased review of the movie is available before I trash or praise. Even if I saw it, I wouldn't know what is or isn't the truth. I doubt you do too. Have a nice day, Kitty

I've let all my friends know about this and several of them have attempted to contact KATU, also.

It seems incredible that Disney/ABC will be losing millions of dollars on this by airing it without advertisements and then giving it away for free downloads. That just boggles my mind - shouldn't the shareholders care about that? Unless... there's some shadowy financing going on here... I'm only speculating; it would be irresponsible not to.

In addition to contacting ABC, and KATU, I also tried to get an email to Steve Jobs at Apple Computer. I know it's a long bank shot, but Steve Jobs is on the board at Disney, and Apple is involved in making this partisan mockumentary available for download.

It seems that if they're not having ads during the movie, it removes our ability to pressure the local advertisers, and through them, KATU. Or does it? Are there any local business leaders who are committed to public service and accuracy who might stand up and say they'd use their local ad dollars elsewhere if KATU goes through with this? Paging Michael Powell... paging local businessman Michael Powell...

Kitty,

What's wrong with taking a pre-emptive approach, just the same way that President Bush does? Or should we wait for the mushroom cloud of the stolen election?

Michelle hasn’t seen the movie yet wants it pulled, along with most everyone else posting on this subject it seems. Funny, but that sounds like censorship to me. How about we all watch the movie and then critique its contents? Don’t you think that would be a much fairer approach?

This film is clearly being promoted not as a documentary but as a dramatization based on actual events. This is Hollywood everybody, of course they are going to jazz things up. Is it the possible besmirching of Bill Clinton’s good name that has everybody’s panties in such a bunch? Somehow I think the American people are smart enough to know there was plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the security failures that led to 911 and will take that into account when watching the movie.

I plan on seeing the movie and deciding its veracity myself without the “gatekeepers of truth” like Michelle making the decision for me.

It's funny how partisans react when something that doesn't quite mesh with their worldview hits the airwaves. Three years ago, for example, conservatives were in an uproar over the CBS miniseries about Ronald Reagan that was almost certainly a mix of fact and fiction. The film portrayed Reagan in a very bad light, and while liberals yelled about free speech, livid conservatives applied enormous pressure on the network until it was pulled; an edited version was later shown on cable.

Today the shoe is on the other foot and it's a Democratic hero who is being allegedly smeared, yet the liberals who screamed "free speech!" during the CBS/Reagan fiasco now want everyone to boycott/email/denounce ABC until the program is pulled or edited. The hypocrisy on both sides is so thick that you could cut it with a knife.

I sent the following letter to "[email protected]" -

Since Powell's stands so strongly in the Portland area for education and fairness, I am compelled to ask if Powell's has a public position on ABC-TV's docudrama, "Paths to 9/11"?

I don't ever recall seeing Powell's ads on local stations, but Powell's is certainly a well-known local business and may have some influence on other local businesses that may advertise on KATU, the local ABC affilliate.

For me, the biggest sign that "Path to 9/11" is a partisan political advertisement, rather than a historical document, is the fact that over 900 advance copies were sent out to right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt - but President Clinton and members of his staff that are portrayed in the film have been denied advance copies. Why else would ABC market the movie to only one side of the political divide in this country?

The movie is also being marketed by Scholastic Books - as a LESSON IN HISTORY. This in spite of one of the chairs of the 9/11 Commission publically declaring that this movie contradicts research the bi-partisan committee conducted in the aftermath of 9/11.

If you need more information on the topic, here are a couple of links:

"Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11"

Think Progress has done a series of posts on the inaccuracies and errors that have already been found - find more here.

I urge Michael Powell and the management and staff of Powell's Books to stand up for accuracy and fairness, to exert their financial power, and to urge KATU to either not show this 6-hour political advertisement, or modiy its content to more accurately portray the events depicted, or at the least to allow equal rebuttal time for the vast segment of the population who have not been given a voice in this misuse of our public airwaves.

Thank you for your time.

What do expect from a station that pretends like John Stossel is a journalist instead of a crazy right wing nut? KATU is crap.

A petition to Disney:

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/ftqiqs

Conservatives will try to use the "What is good for "Farenheit 911" is good enough for "Path to 911". Here's one counterpoint: These are public stations working from tax payer dollars. If Conservatives want to release a movie paid with private dollars to fund their own crap, they can do so.

"Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or Pull 9/11 Miniseries"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html

KATU is so bad these days - I think even worse than Fox 12. I realize we're talking about abc - but the local affiliate doesn't even do news anymore, it's all fluff.

Who watches ABC anyways?

Thanks to all the liberal boo-hoo-hooing, the attention level to this TV production will be much higher than had it been ignored.

Good job on raising awareness!!!!

Disney should send all of you a fee pass to DisneyLand and a complimentary pair of fuzzy mouse ears.

Steve,

nice job in summing up your emotions in less than 10,000 words.

"Dan" said: "Thanks to all the liberal boo-hoo-hooing, the attention level to this TV production will be much higher than had it been ignored.

Good job on raising awareness!!!!"

Right! Damn, we should have thought of all that free publicity we're giving ABC! We're so stupid - why, just think of all the advertising revenue... we're... um... giving to... ABC...

Oh, right. ABC is airing this "commercial free", and tossing (I've read at least) $65 million in the toilet for this.

Hey, wonder how they're gonna make money off this thing? Isn't that what a business is supposed to be doing?

(Hint: I'm being snarky)

Buckman Res,

You've gotta be kidding! You really think "the American people are smart enough to know" .... and to think for themselves? A poll last month showed that 50% of Americans still believe that Saddam DID have WMDs when we invaded with all evidence to the contrary and even Bush admitting that we did not. How smart is that?

The scary part is how clever these guys are. Even though the movie runs counter to the findings of the 9/11 Commission (all the while stating that is has the blessings of it's co-chair), even though it was only distributed to right wing nutcases (Limbaugh is bragging about the latest propaganda tool created by his buddy), even though most would consider it tacky and in poor taste to "fictionlize" and take creative license with the most traumatic, defining moment in our living history EVEN SO the Democrats are still gonna lose this one. They are going to look scared, as if there is something to hide, that they are soft on national security and are hypocrites who believe in censorship when it suits them. Doesn't matter that the movie is a biased smear piece. This is what they do. Can't wait to see what's next.

I called KATU and spoke to a nice gal who said that she had taken hundreds of complaints, none of them abusive, but that she believed it is "an ABC decision, not a local one". I don't think that's the case, but how should I know? It probably doesn't matter anyway because a gazillion tapes will be sent to all the box churches and shown to all the "believers" who always knew it was Clinton's fault anyway!

I think comparing a fictionalized miniseries about a President and one of the largest tragedies in American history are two very different things.

Buckman Res seems to think that it's okay to "jazz things up" when it comes to something like this. This isn't about censoring something that will be damaging to one political party or another. This is about misrepresenting events that lead up to a national tragedy. I don't know about you, but when I'm talking to someone about history I want to know that my teachers never lied to me.

You cannot deny the fact that to many, this film will be viewed as public record. ABC is doing nothing to address the falsehoods that will be propegated on a mass scale and as such is disrespecting every American, especially the 2,997 who either died or remain missing as a result of the terrorist attacks on September the 11th.

The most sickening fact is that not only are they displaying this on national television, but they are promoting it to schools throughout the country.

Imagine history teachers showing Oliver Stone's JFK to classes as gospel. My stomach sinks to think of the impact this will have on our younger generations.

What we need is a documentary that tells the truth about illegal and immoral foreign policy debacles sponsored by both parties. Republicans, as sleazy and unambiguously fascistic as they've been for the last 5 years, have no monopoly on misuse of the iron fist. We were attacked because of a very long-term policy of violence and abuse in the Middle East as a way to control the oil there. The response was and is inevitable as long as we continue this policy.

karol,

I emailed the Programming Dept. at KATU this a.m. and it went through. Who did you send your email to?

“We were attacked because of a very long-term policy of violence and abuse in the Middle East as a way to control the oil there.”

Wow, somebody needs dig out their old social studies book from high school. Have you ever heard of OPEC or the '73 oil embargo?

MidEast oil is controlled by the countries of that region, not the US. For some further background you might try reading “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin. It details how western nations found the oil reserves in the Middle East, supplied the technology with which to extract it, and then provided the markets to sell oil at, making the Saudis, Iranians, etc, rich beyond their wildest dreams.

The real reason we were attacked is because fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with modern western society. Western societies, and the USA in particular, are open and accepting of religious freedom, women’s rights, homosexuality, a free press...I’m sure you can think of many more examples yourself. All the freedoms we value are denied in fundamentalist theocracies like the one that was toppled in Afghanistan (I make no defense of our Iraq invasion).

Class dismissed.

Buckman - Seriously? The USA in particular is accepting of homosexuality? Buwaahhahhahaa! Now that's rich!

As one of the few people on Earth who has actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report (and the footnotes), I find it UNBELIEVABLE that ABC-TV would make lie and lie and lie to make money off of 3,000 dead people -- which makes them BLOOD LIES.

Of course, when I worked at KATU with Jeff and Julie, we were Number One and didn't have to run crapola like that.

So, the further KATU sinks, they'll be trailing Channel 14 soon, the more desperate they become.

And as for me, I'm not going to stop emailing these idiots until I can roll up ABC-TV's FCC License in my hand and slap the movie's wing nut producer around a bit for laughs.

Just wondering ... if, say, sometime in mid-October another network ran a free, no-commercials history of the modern "war on terror" that portrayed Clinton as a heroic, highly competent warrior against terrorism and Bush as a lazy, uninformed, stupid puppet of an sinister neo-conservative cabal in the White House -- and showed every significant Republican character as venal and corrupt and every Democrat as upstanding and heroic -- and presented a number of manufactured events and conversations as historic fact...

y'think maybe the right wing would call foul? Especially if it popped up just a few weeks before the election?

Of course they would. And for once, they'd be right. Correct. Whatever. The public airwaves are no place for this stuff. This slanted, partisan smear job is being put out just a couple of months before midterm elections, and is exploiting the anniversary of a national tragedy in a transparent effort to influence those elections.

Which makes me wonder... is there time (and does Michael Moore have the inclination) to update Farenheit 9/11 (maybe Farenheit 9/11: Five Years Later or something) and see if there's a network willing to run it on a special night ... maybe Sunday October 29. Maybe ABC would do it in the interests of balance. (Satan just called -- he needs some foot warmers.)

I wonder what you cult-of-personality-afflicted Clinton-worshippers would have to say about a documentary or movie that accurately portrayed his administration's sadistic cynicism and manipulation of the facts in the run-up to the barbaric, "technically illegal," air war against Serbia. That crime against humanity killed roughly as many civilians as 9/11, and also set precedent for the US hooking up with "coalitions of the willing" to try and forcibly oust foreign dictators who had otherwise done our country no harm.

Face facts: The last Democrat in the White House was an evil liar and a war criminal no different than the current occupant. Anyone who defends the foreign policy of either is ignorant or evil himself.

I guess all those "Nobody died when Clinton Lied" bumperstickers should be banned from public display? Because I believe they distort the truth.

Or should free speech protections only protect the Left?

One man's propaganda, is another's gospel. You've got to take the good with the bad.

The Path to 9/11 is clearly right-wing propaganda and a lie. ABC is running it in a way to trick uniformed viewers into thinking it is the truth.

That's funny in a pitiful way, someone insane calling us Clinton-worshippers! Really, focussing on personalities in matters of historical import is missing the point.

While they are never really successful against media outlets, its possible that in this case perhaps declaring a boycott of any sponsors whose advertisements appear during the program would be effective. Essentially if you buy Kraft products, for instance, you are paying for rightwing propaganda. Perhaps even more effective would be going after any local advertisers to pressure KATU. They are smaller fish and could be targeted with picket lines the day after the filming. I don't know if it would scare off KATU, but it would likely create some follow-up media about the fact that the program was distorting history with partisan results.

Let me withdraw the suggestion of a boycott. Apparently it is being aired without commercial interruption. Essentially they are airing five hours of right wing propaganda free of charge.

<h1></h1>

It is not surprising rightwingers are stupid. The surprise is they so willingly admit it openly, as in any comment of his above, pick one.

No, I don't watch TV. To whoever commented that they are going to take the names of sponsors: Post the SPONSORS' NAMES here when it's over.

Name calling and gripe calling at KATU means nothing. Any who mean what they say, and want to DO SOMETHING that matters: Cancel your cable TV subscription.

Bad for them, good for you.

<h1></h1>

someonesane:

So write a movie about that. Apparently you didn't notice we're talking 9/11 not Bosnia. Typical neocon style tactic, though-- switch topics when the argument isnt going well for you. You might want to practice first before attempting it on people who have better concentration skills than those you're used to bullying.

I thought Michael Powell favored "free speech" in all forms of media.?

Steven,

Do you ever read what you're writing BEFORE you hit "post"? A majority of democrats opposed both the original Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our party is adrift in its own BS, so what do we have to offer LOOKING FORWARD?? We always seem so busy trying to redefine our own misdeeds, rather than owning up to them and pledging to do better in the future in certain, defined, concrete, ways.

@"Lee" - I have only the vaguest idea what Michael Powell favors these days, but "free speech" sounds like a good idea. It was good enough to put into the Bill of Rights, after all, right? I mean, I remember back in the '90s when Rush Limbaugh's first book came out, and Rush had all his ditto-heads checking independent bookstores to make sure that his book was prominently displayed and for sale - Powell's, being one of the larger stores and located in "Little Beirut" (as Bush 41 called Portland) was especially targeted.

And Michael Powell and the staff had to take great pains to make sure that when the book was sold out, that there was a huge sign, spelled out in very small words, to explain that the book was currently sold out, there was a high demand, and that staff would happily take customers' names for an order for when the book was back in stock.

That didn't stop the ditto-heads from harassing the staff and claiming that they were "censoring" Rush Limbaugh and how that's supposedly un-American and just who did Michael Powell think he was, anyway?

I know 'cause I worked there then. I thought it was a valuable lesson in sticking up for principles - because Michael Powell was liberal, the ditto-heads just assumed that he'd "censor" Limbaugh's book. Classic projection. And no amount of pointing out the facts would satisfy them.

So now we've got a smear job from a bunch of right-wingers, aided by an historic financial move by a major corporation to get it on the air at a huge cost to their profits. And those of us on the Left are supposed to just sit back and accept it?

I'm fine with letting ABC have their "free speech" - but I got a problem with them doing it on the public airwaves. And since the public airwaves belong to all of us, and that includes me, I'm going to do what I can to loudly voice my opinion of what ABC is doing. And if that means enlisting folks like Michael Powell, folks who might have a bit more economic clout than I do, that's an easy call.

I'm a consumer - my dollars are often more powerful than my vote (especially these days). I don't see anything wrong with talking back to corporate America and pointing out that if they piss me off I'm gonna take my money elsewhere.

In the end, ABC and KATU have the choice to air this or not. From the way it was marketed (over 900 DVDs sent only to right-wing bloggers and media figures like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh), it sounds like they know the slant the movie has taken. I'm just not sure why they'd focus on a market as small as the percentage of Americans who like what Bush is doing. But I'm kinda glad that those of us in the MAJORITY are making our opinions felt.

If ABC wants their free speech they're gonna have to fight for it, just like any other American. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, y'know. Or if you'd prefer, "Freedom isn't free".

Was it propaganda when Michael Moore's documentary asserted that the Bush family (and their friends) was motivated by greed to invade Iraq?

Was it censorship when Sandy Berger was stuffing classified terrorism documents into his pants?

Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.

WHAT COULD CLINTON'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BE TRYING TO HIDE?

Does anyone know what was going on at Sen. Charles Starr's home today? I hear there were a number of cop cars there as well as one or two abulences. I heard also that there was something wierd with a dead dog as well. Anyone know???

For the record, Alworth and Troix, I said Clinton was an evil liar and a war criminal no different than the current (White House) occupant. Maybe Dems just tend to stop reading in mid-sentence and rush to the defense of their Great Leader the moment they encounter criticism of him. (So much for those vaunted Blueoregon "concentration skills" I guess, huh, Troix?)

Furthermore, my larger point is that the Clinton administration's unprovoked military aggressions set the stage and helped prime the domestic political pump for Bush's unprovoked military aggressions. As far as that goes, Saddam was a much more brutal tyrant, not to mention a proven threat to his neighbors, than Slobo ever dreamed of being, so if your criteria for employing American military might against the people of a sovereign nation is simply that their ruler a very bad man, then your complaints about Bush's assault on Iraq are nothing more than partisan hypocrisy. (For that matter, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton -- and his wife, and John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and a lot of other prominent "liberals" -- support the invasion of Iraq?)

One more thing, Troix, your ridiculous description of my views as "neocon" makes even less sense than Rummy calling principled, noninterventionist critics of the Iraq debacle "appeasers."

"By Michelle Neumann of Portland, Oregon. Michelle is an attorney and a political activist"

If she's claiming to be an attorney, then why does her employer's web site say she's a paralegal? Jordan Schrader PC Adds Two Paralegals

Portland, OR... Jordan Schrader PC, a regional law firm, has announced the addition of two paralegals to its staff, Michelle A. Neumann and Angela M. Johnson. Both Neumann and Johnson worked as attorneys prior to joining Jordan Schrader as paralegals.

I wonder why she's no longer an attorney? Couldn't pass the Oregon bar, maybe?

Bad news: I have to agree with the earlier poster who noted that all of this publicity will probably cause more people to watch. Does this increase revenue in an ad-free program? Of course not. Will it influence some gullible souls? Quite probably.

Good news: Those gullible souls will have nearly two months between the air date and the election to forget everything they "learned" from the ill-advised airing of this alleged documentary.

Regarding partisan hypocrisy: I concur. Conservatives have every right to be angry with liberals regarding the attempted censure of this film in comparison to conservative attempts to censure Fahrenheit 9/11. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, folks. And free speech is free speech. (Fortunately for me, I didn't mind their ranting about Michael Moore's film... but that's just me.) Conservatives have every right to call liberals hyporcrites in this comparison. On the other hand, however, ABC is doing a grave disservice to the American public by airing an allegedly biased "documentary" -- which is all the more concerning because it will be seen by viewers on the anniversary of the attacks, when most people will be expecting real documentaries. Even if they run disclaimers, odds are some people will believe the fictionalized details.

Question for the legal eagles out there: If I were a member of the Clinton administration and I were falsely portrayed in this "documentary," would I have any grounds for a libel suit against the producer et al? Or does the "disclaimer" nullify that? If it were me being falsely portrayed in one of the worst moments in American history, I would be outraged and horrified.

Good news: Those gullible souls will have nearly two months between the air date and the election to forget everything they "learned" from the ill-advised airing of this alleged documentary.

I think that is being unrealistic. Television is not an intellectual experience. If this is well-done it will define what happened leading up to 911 for people who watch it. People remember what they see. What they will forget is which parts are fiction.

ABC is doing a masterful job of ensuring that both right wing and left wing nuts watch. Me? I have better things to do.

Great. "OregonBar," you have now posted the most slimy thing ever on BlueOregon.

There are plenty of reasons why an attorney might take a job as a paralegal. Or, indeed, maybe she hasn't passed the bar exam. In any event, what the hell is it any of your business? Why is it relevant to this thread? Why are you such an ignorant, hateful jerkoff?

Hope you're proud of yourself.

John Mulvey

ABC is doing a masterful job of ensuring that both right wing and left wing nuts watch.

No doubt. And they have also done a masterful job of focusing attention on invented failings of the Clinton administration rather than on Bush. Its not surprising that the Republican Chair of the 911 commission was involved as a consultant and continues to promote and defend the film. If anyone thought the commission was really non-partisan, this should really end that.

I will be interested to hear whether the film includes footage of the President continuing to read to school kids, flying off to Nebraska instead of back to Washington and or a dramatization of Cheney falsely telling reporters that the reason Bush didn't return to Washington was that they had firm intelligence that Airforce One was a target. Anyone want to take bets that those actual events are highlighted?

I wonder why she's no longer an attorney? Couldn't pass the Oregon bar, maybe?

Typical Republick party tactics: When someone makes a good point that destroys your delusional world view, attack them personally rather than address the argument.

I believe this is a practice used most often by people who are generally referred to as SCUMBAGS.

And please everyone stop picking on KATU. That's like booing at the Special Olympics. (sorry Triumph).

Actually John, it is important if Ms. Neumann is holding herself out as an attorney. Doing so is a crime. In addition, the Oregon State Bar doesn't like it when people claim to be attorneys when they really aren't. Of course, she works at a big firm, so the Bar won't do anything about it....

In any event, it is a crime. She is not admitted to the Bar (I just checked) so she may not hold herself out as an attorney. Of course, because you agree with her point of view, you probably don't care if she is breaking the law or not.

Details.

Sorry for the confusion, everyone - I'm an attorney in Texas, bar card 24002683.

(I've also passed the Oregon bar and the MPRE - just got the scores 2 days ago.)

Looks like I need to keep up with the comments!

I'm curious as to why not a word of this has been written over at Oregon Media Insider? Can someone from KATU please tell us something? This is ridiculous. I can't believe they're actually going to go ahead with this. This is one of the most irrisponsible things I've ever heard of.

Steve,

nice job of calling the entire south a bunch of racists. Typical liberal name calling .

My guess is that you must receive your paycheck from the Gov't to have this much time to post. Then again, most Blue Oregon regulars appear to receive a Gov't paycheck so no big surprise there.

I'll get back to work, to generate more payroll taxes to pay for your retirement benefits.

KATU is reporting ABC is going to make some 'adjustments' to the series. There is also an ongoing poll on whether or not you will watch the piece, and a chance to 'express your views' after answering their poll.

http://www.katu.com/stories/88968.html

Variety Magazine (www.variety.com) reports ABC may PULL the whole multi-million dollar fiasco off the air, kinda like Disney REFUSED to run "Farenheit 9/11" in movie theatres for pay.

Scholastic (publishing company for schools) is withdrawing its "path to 9/11" study guide and publishing a new "Fantasyland" version for conservative students with strong imaginations and weak minds.

And special thanks to Texas attorney Michelle for SLAPPING down "OregonBar", who my Google research shows has no legal experience other than watching an old "L.A. Law" episode on Lifetime with his Mom in the basement.

Actually, "OregonStateBarSux," it's illegal to practice law without a license. It's not a "crime," and good luck finding a judge who will agree with you that posting on a blog is "practicing law."

Michelle, congratulations on your bar exam. It was not necessary to explain your personal life to anonymous crackpots, but thanks anyway.

John

The scene causing the biggest consternation -- showing a CIA team about to bear down on bin Laden but unable to get authority from Clinton so they mission is scrubbed -- is pure invention.

Sounds interesting, can you cite a reference?

....and no blogs please...

I am questioning why ABC even did this movie in the first place. Are they really that bored??? I realize that the 5th anniversary is coming up, but why do we have to have things like this movie? Can't we just memorialize the tragedy in our own private ways and not run the whole thing into the ground by trivializing it in such a manner? Blame time is over - let us move forward.

As I did today, I suggest everyone write in to OPB or PBS and request, in light of ABC's movie, to air all of their Frontline episodes (related to 9/11 and bin laden) during the same timeslots. Though improbable, I think it would be a fair, unbiased presentation of the same material, without the drama.

Hey, Jon.

Here's a reference for you, it's called the 9/11 Commission Report. Read it.

While not perfect, it is considered the offficial report on the events leading up to September the 11th, you know, instead of something written by one of Rush Limbaugh's buddies.

"Wow, somebody needs dig out their old social studies book from high school."

Buckman, this is the single most devastating argument I've ever heard advanced. However, I've heard that there are better sources even than your old social studies book.

"MidEast oil is controlled by the countries of that region, not the US."

There is so much written on this subject in all the standard sources that I find it difficult to believe that you haven't run into any of it. Try googling "US control of oil" for a starter.

someonesane is someone sane. Bush et al are anti-democratic war criminals, and Republicans who don't realize this have been victimized by the GOP propaganda machine. But those Democrats who worship Democratic power are falling for the same line of bull. Please at least read Howard Zinn's (not a neocon) chapter on the Clinton Presidency in his latest edition of "A People's History of the U.S." It's only when we are willing to take a moral stand for non-partisan reasons that we will develop into a country with honor.

My republican and bush-apologist 'friends'-

Ah, the vindicating glory of the information age... With all the information you could ever want/need at your fingertips, there's very little reason to justify your pointless despiration at this point. You're all 'dead-enders'... realizing the illusion that Republicans have built for you is falling to pieces, you're now flailing like a boxer with two black eyes.

Give it up. Realize that you're either too stupid, gullible, proud, or evil to deal in the reality-based world. The majority of your comments are intellectually dishonest and amaturish... you're bringing a knife to a gunfight, and you're gonna get trounced every time.

If you insist on keeping up the charade, you can always find comfort in the bubble that Lars, Hannity, Rush, and O'Reilly operate in. Just don't get startled again when you leave the Spin Zone for reality...

KATU has been unresponsive to legitimate community concerns. I am extremely disappointed.

I just used parental controls to block KATU, ESPN and Disney channels. I encourage you to do the same.

KATU, you had your chance to do the right thing, or at the very least respond with something other than an offensively lame and irresponsible cop-out that is tantamount to a slap in the face.

As it is, you have demonstrated that for all your community-related PR (2 on Your Side!), when push comes to shove, you lack the integrity and the courage to stand up for us and with us.

I move the previous question: Why was National Security Advisor Sandy Berger trying to hide by stuffing classified documents in his pants? Try replacing the name (Condi) Rice in place of (Sandy) Berger, and then tell me that y'all wouldn't be going ballistic if she was stuffying classified documents down her pants?:

Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.

TKrank: On behalf of all the stupid dead-enders in the blogosphere: the word "despiration" is spelled "desperation". But don't let lousy spelling prevent you from declaring your moral and intellectual superiority. U da Man! Go Dawg!

..

Here's a reference for you, it's called the 9/11 Commission Report. Read it.

While not perfect, it is considered the offficial report on the events leading up to September the 11th, you know, instead of something written by one of Rush Limbaugh's buddies.

Except it isn't. It is just a milder partisan version as is clear from its Chairman's endorsement of ABC's fictionalization. The commission ducked any issues that would have really reflected badly on George Bush and failed to really dig into what the administration knew before 911. Almost a third of the american public believes they knew the attacks were going to happen and failed to act to prevent them. Whether you believe that or not, it ought to be clear from the commission chair's involvement in this film that the commission's conclusion's can't be trusted.

another try Did it work?

RE Jon and Jesse's points...

Beginning on page 187 of the 9/11 Commission Report, there is a section detailing Ahmed Shah Massoud's intent to attack the Derunta training complex in early 2000. The report goes on to say that no authorization was given to Massoud - a well-funded CIA operative - and his men because of the assassination ban.

Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" corroborates this account (p. 492-3 of the updated edition). According to Coll, Massoud organized a rocket attack on Derunta after getting wind of a CIA report that had detailed UBL's arrival there. When the CIA learned that Massoud was acting without CIA approval, "The CIA's lawyers convulsed in alarm. The White House legal authorities that provided guidance for the new liaison with Massound had not authorized pure lethal operations against bin Laden."

Momentarily disregarding the question of whether Massoud's attack was ever realized (any action has never been confirmed), according to Coll and the 9/11 Report it would appear an objective fact that there were CIA-funded operatives in Afghanistan extremely willing and ready to head down the bumpy road to Derunta for a good ol'-fashioned rocket attack.

Now, will this incident (or any collection of incidents it may signify) see dramatization in the gaudy fashion to which only network TV cinema can aspire? Absolutely.

Is it pure, unadulterated invention? Of course not.

Momentarily disregarding the question of whether Massoud's attack was ever realized (any action has never been confirmed), according to Coll and the 9/11 Report it would appear an objective fact that there were CIA-funded operatives in Afghanistan extremely willing and ready to head down the bumpy road to Derunta for a good ol'-fashioned rocket attack.

Now, will this incident (or any collection of incidents it may signify) see dramatization in the gaudy fashion to which only network TV cinema can aspire? Absolutely.

Is it pure, unadulterated invention? Of course not.

This afternoon I heard a radio interview of one of the actors in this---who said "haven't seen the final cut, only know what we shot" which was kind of an interesting commentary.

Also an interesting commentary from this same actor who had apparently talked to some retired CIA folks who were on the set: "This movie started the story too late--a really accurate movie would have started the story long before Clinton was President, back to what was going on in that area of the world back maybe even to the 1980s".

There are cynics who would respond by saying "But that would spoil all the fun of Clinton-bashing".

According to this DailyKos post: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/8/12711/37922 The person to contact is the General Sales Manager. According to this article: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6315193.html Jo Anne James became General Sales Manager at KATU earlier this year. Her email appears to be [email protected]. Not that she'll read any emails until next week.

Moon. I thought "free speech" would be in the same catagory as "public airways". Even our local tv public access channels allow "free speech", even it might be offensive to someone elses sensibilities. You cannot be selective if you really believe in "free speech".

Is it pure, unadulterated invention? Of course not.

The 911 commission was set up to shift blame off of Bush and onto the bureaucracy and/or his predecessor. Its Republican chair is now "consulting" on this fictionalization, helping to pull out minor parts of the report and twist them to serve their partisan political purposes.

Copy the FCC on your complaints to KATU with this message:

FCC-Please place this message in the station's "FCC LICENSE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FILE.

Federal Communications Commission - FCC Phone: 888-225-5322 Fax: 866-418-0232 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 Email: [email protected] Complaints Page: http://www.fcc.gov/...

Kevin J. Martin, Chairman Phone: 202-418-1000 Contact webform: http://www.fcc.gov/...

Conservatives will try to use the "What is good for "Farenheit 911" is good enough for "Path to 911". Here's one counterpoint: These are public stations working from tax payer dollars. If Conservatives want to release a movie paid with private dollars to fund their own crap, they can do so.

Um, excuse me; you might want to check your "facts". PBS is the only public station "working from taxpayer dollars". ABC, NBC, and CBS are funded by advertising. And to all of the folks ranting on about "lies", here: I really think that dpends upon what your definition of the word "is" is. Next time you see Dan Rather, give him a big ol' hug for me.

Hypocrisy....

The Path to 9/11 is clearly right-wing propaganda and a lie. ABC is running it in a way to trick uniformed viewers into thinking it is the truth.

Oh, so you've already seen it, T?

Mr Tee-

If Bojack's site was operational, it would take us 2 seconds to find one of your many spelling/grammar misadventures in the comments section. It doesn't surprise me that you've latched onto a single misspelling... now you don't have to face any accountability for your opinions! Yay!

This isn't about intellectual superiority, it's about a mentality that stubbornly puts your party before your country. It is now patently obvious that Clinton's Administration was taking the lead on Osama and Bush's crew didn't want to hear any of it when they transitioned. It's now patently obvious thanks to the new Senate report that the intelligence was willfully fabricated to sell the Iraq invasion to us. It's now patently obvious that up til now, Bush and Cheney have been peddling the known lies, contradicting themselves numerous times each week. Buddy, that's illegal and impeachable and you can't put your finger in your ears this time. That's just one of the many offenses we can choose from...

The sky is blue, yet you continue to claim it's purple. The Bush administration continues to say it's purple too, but they don't offer anything but a repetition of talking points to justify their views. Can you honestly say you're accountable in your support of this despot? The GOP you thought you knew and loved is gone...

If the Clinton Administration had "taken the lead on Osama" then September 11th would not have happened. Right? Presidents are supposed to prevent all natural disasters and domestic terror attacks, right? But what if the roles were reversed?

What if Bush had served 8 glorious years in the White House, and he left office to witness (as a private citizen) the 9/11 attack in just the eighth month of Clinton's first term? I dare say that many Blue Oregonians would be singing a different song about whose "fault" it was. And the "Clinton Recession" which followed: that would have been all Bush's fault, because we all know the dot com crash and the Y2K tidal wave wasn't sustainable. But liberals have never been real fond of intellectual consistency, have they?

Virtually no national politician in mainstream American public life is fond of intellectual consistency; If they were they wouldn't claim membership in either the Republican or Democratic Party. Partisanship in this country is a disease, and there's ample reason to worry that our freedom may ultimately die from it.

There are many duplicate accounts of what the Path to 9/11 movie says and details... guys, this is the information age, and these things can be verified in no time. So stop with the "you haven't seen it" BS... the whole world can read the transcript and watch video already.

Bill Clinton green-lighted 100% of all CIA requests to get Osama when they had chances to... but this movie is blending fact and fiction to depict a major tragedy while assailing real people's character (creative license? Bullshit) and revising history. It isn't censorship to block the airing of this fake-u-mentary, it's realizing that you can't assail someone’s character willfully. There’s a difference.

-- When you pay your cable TV bill every month, part of your money goes to elect fascist Republicans. Don't say you oppose them and you are a good Democrat, when you actually give real money of your own to the Republican fascists.

BOYCOTT Cable TV. What part of you give your money to Republican fascists don't you understand?

Link to MediaMatters(dot)ORG for this:

CNN, Fox, ABC hosts ignored key issues in interviews of Kean: his relationship with The Path to 9/11 producers, possible benefit to his son's Senate campaign

Summary: Hosts on CNN, ABC, and Fox News failed to raise key issues while interviewing Thomas H. Kean about his role as a senior consultant to the ABC's The Path to 9/11 -- specifically, the terms of his arrangement with ABC and the possible benefit of Kean's high-profile promotion of the conservative-skewed miniseries to the campaign of his namesake son, who is running as a Republican for a Senate seat in New Jersey.

During interviews about the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 with former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean (R), chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- also known as the 9-11 Commission -- the hosts of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Fox News' Fox & Friends, and ABC's Good Morning America failed to raise key issues with Kean bearing on his role as a senior consultant to the film: What are the terms of his arrangement with ABC? Might his son, Thomas H. Kean Jr., who is challenging Democrat Bob Menendez for his New Jersey Senate seat, not benefit from Kean's high-profile promotion of a film that falsely presents the actions of President Clinton, who is campaigning for Menendez; by promoting a film that smears a Democratic administration through fabricated scenes, is Kean not tarnishing his own image and that of the 9-11 Commission, ...

Mr Tee said: "If the Clinton Administration had "taken the lead on Osama" then September 11th would not have happened. Right?"

I'm not sure how anyone comes to this conclusion. There is plenty of documentation that shows Clinton and his anti-terrorism team were pursuing Osama relentlessly and viewed him as a grave threat... they just didn't try to use him as a boogie man. The fact is, although the tactical strikes didn't take Osama out, he WAS TRYING TO EARNESTLY... all while the GOP was screaming "NO WAR FOR MONICA!". When Bush took office, his team didn't even want to talk about Osama or address the grave intelligence that Clinton's team was handing off to them. THIS IS PROVEN! Bush didn't even try to pursue Osama until 9/11, and even then, he gave up and made him a low priority. Again, Osama=9/11, Saddam=enemy of Al Qaeda. How does this make Democrats weak on security again?? More hollow talking points that stick, I guess.

Anyone who paid attention knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda because it was well documented. Al Zarqawi was even being targeted for capture by Saddam, so there goes another GOP pillar of truthiness. The new Senate report reiterates this, yet 45% of Americans continue to believe there was a connection. WHY? Because Bush and Cheney have actively conflated two very different issues. And lied on record. How can anyone objectively argue they don't deserve to be impeached, on this or one of the many other grounds?

You can't, that's why.

There's an interesting discussion in the 9/11 Commission Report (pg 118) about President Clinton's inability to keep his cock out of the help, and whether or not the scandals surrounding that had any bearing on his national security decisions. Of course Sandy Berger rushes to his Presidents defense and says Clinton specifically told his national security aides not to consider the public's perception of his lack of sexual control when deciding what to do about dealing with OBL or other national security concerns. Berger said the President advised him that "we were going to get crap either way, so (national security staffers) should do the right thing."

Nevertheless the 9/11 Commission Report goes on to make this statement: "The failure of the strikes (against Afghanistan in 1998), the 'wag the dog' slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the evidence (at Sudansese pharmaceutical factory Clinton bombed) likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Laden."

Sorry, that's "Sudanese" -- the al Shifa plant was in Khartoum

The last thing this country needs is a pent-up, unsexed president with an itchy trigger finger. Plus, we're to believe a man is distracted because he has a sex life? Does anyone else see the insanity of this?

It doesn't matter if he's having sex with Hillary of Monica, it's an extracurricular activity. Whatever distractions there were, they were caused by the GOP's obsession with taking Clinton down. Finally they resorted to highlighting his sex life, because his governing was successful and popular in this country, and around the globe. Even then, I don't think that it takes much out of a man's working day to acknowledge a lie and move on.

Treacherous republican party... if conservatives out there have any shred of dignity, they'd join with liberals to elect a Democratic majority in the House and Senate this year. It's time to drop the automatic cynicism about the Dems... we have a true record of budgetary responsibility, security, economic development, and peacetime. Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr exist in this conservative halo, where somehow they appear to be fiscally conservative, value life, or excel at foreign policy. But the fact is, Carter and Clinton walked the walk and talked the talk. Let's not also forget the swarms of contractors headed by former Reagan and Bush republicans... You know, the opportunists who create the very budget waste that conservatives supposedly detest. Our unnecessary Iraq pork-fest has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars to those crooks alone. ARE YOU LISTENING PEOPLE??? WAKE UP!

Does it matter if Clinton (a lawyer) lies to a Grand Jury? Would it matter less if he was simply an aide to the Vice President named Scooter Libby, lying to a special prosecutor instead?

If Clinton stood up in front of a nationally televised press conference and said "I did not have sex with that woman" is it possible he might be willing to lie about his willingness to employ extra-judicial means to kill a foreign national? A man who is willing to lie about an affair might even be more likely to lie about his share of the responsibility in America's greatest national tragedy in a 100 years. Or he only lies about the little things?

Here's an interesting catalog of a couple dozen of Bill Clinton's documented lies!

I know that progressives have all but walked away from Marxism, but Here's a link to a communist website that purports to document Clinton's lies about the Sudan bombings.

READ 'EM & WEEP, Democrats!

"There's an interesting discussion in the 9/11 Commission Report (pg 118) about President Clinton's inability to keep his cock out of the help, and whether or not the scandals surrounding that had any bearing on his national security decisions."

More partisan manuevering by the 911 commission. There was and is no evidence that the scandal effected the administration's approach to bin Laden. It is pure speculation. But will it show up in the dramatization? Anyone taking bets?

One of the things about the Republicans is that there approach for the last 30 years has been to grind things out with small success building on small success. They created a non-partisn commission and then inserted a variety of speculative efforts to blame Clinton while ignoring or exonerating Bush's mistakes. Nothing so partisan that the democrats could attack it directly and even if they did they would have simply highlighted the speculative attacks. They built a network of Republican churches one church at a time while adopting Christianity as their private label and all but copyrighting it. Each required incremental victories that Democrats simply didn't notice or weren't willing to fight about.

The full import of all those incremental victories only becomes apparent when in the middle of an election where Bush is finally going to be held accountable, there is a movie that delivers the knockout punch of placing the blame for 911 on over-sexed Bill Clinton and weak-kneed Democrats allied with faithless bureaucrats.

Or when that network of churches starts turning people out on election day with the message that if you vote for Democrats you are godless.

On the other hand, the Democrats are always looking for a home run that will knock the Republicans out of the park. The perfect message or the perfect campaign strategy. We are focused on the next election while the Republicans are focused on the next decade.

Who was responsible for 911, Clinton, Bush or both? The obvious answer is Bush, he was warned, he failed to act and 911 happened. But Democrats let the commission answer "both". And the Republicans and their chair of that commission are now about to create history's answer - Clinton and the Democrats.

Mr Tee-

The proof is in the pudding. Clinton was a great president, he went out popular here in the states, and the world adored him more than any American leader since Kennedy (Preventing Terrorism 101: Some extremists will always hate the U.S.A, BUT THEIR MAIN TACTIC IS LEVERAGING WORLD OPINION OF US to grow their ranks and make us weak). You can highlight some obscure and amateurish website with Clinton 'lies', but you don't even address the obvious misrepresentations of the GOP and Dems. The GOP isn't anything they said they are, nor are the Dems anything the GOP claimed they were. The Dems excel at both foreign policy AND fiscal responsibility. If you bothered to base your opinions on reality, you wouldn't be yearning for a revisionist history that you've bought to prop up your bruised ego. Face it, your hatred for Clinton is a stubborn remnant of your ignorance.

Three kinds of people hated Clinton: the people who smeared him to get power/money, the people who believed the smear, and the people who were bitter from not getting laid enough. Mr. Tee, please tell me it's not the latter.

The last thing this country needs is a pent-up, unsexed president

For sure; yet another good reason not to vote for Hillary in 2008.

"Who was responsible for 911, Clinton, Bush or both?"

Sadly, that question serves up the falsest of false choices in a hopelessly narrow frame. Questions about "culpability" and "responsibility" range much further.

This, of course, ultimately begs a more fundamental question: what kind of documentary or narrative is appropriate (for lack of a better word)? Others here have obviously thoroughly beaten up on the pinata that is ABC, some have praised Frontline's reporting, others have advanced their doubts regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, some may have satisfied their paranoia with the "Loose Change" video.

What does a "fair" documentary look like? Moreover, is that "fair" documentary even achievable? How could we ever expect one?

What does a "fair" documentary look like?

What does that have to do with this? This isn't a documentary is it?

Sadly, that question serves up the falsest of false choices in a hopelessly narrow frame.

Like most political decisions, but that was hardly the point. The fact is that the "blame Clinton and the Democrats" battle has already been won by Republicans. They have successfully removed responsibility from those in office who actually failed to act on direct warnings. Even better they have transferred that responsibility to their political opponents.

What we have here is the Republican head of the 911 commission having taken his "non-partisan" report and helped turn it into a fictionalized version of history that absolves his Republican compatriots of responsibility and blames bureaucrats, Clinton and the Democrats.

I'm still cleaning the popcorn out of my keyboard....Warn me the next time before you hit a punchline like "Democrats excell at foreign policy Are you joking? Roosevelt and Truman were great (I especially liked the Truman Doctrine), and Kennedy was certainly exceptional. But that was a long time ago. Then you have to deal with the likes of Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter? Does 444 days ring any bells? How about winning their hearts and minds?...President Johnson suggested we simply: "Grab them by the balls and squeeze hard." So much for high brow foreign policy planning.

Bill Clinton had great public relations skills, but his diplomatic initiatives were marginal at best. Unless you're a big fan of NAFTA, the WTO, and globalization.

Remember the "Oslo Accords"or the Wye River Memorandum? Neither do the Palestinians!

How about the Agreed Framework that was going to solve the nuclear weapons threat from North Korea? Just another mushroom cloud punted to the next administration, apparently.

Did you see Blackhawk Down? Ever wonder why the U.S. Army had to rely on Pakistani tanks for their evacuation? Bill Clinton should be able to explain that one, too. He's real good at that.

No, of course it's not a documentary. I only pose the question to address one of the fundamental issues at stake in this discussion: with so many different narratives and stories swirling around, each with their own deficiencies, can we focus our energy to create a "proper" history? Is that even possible?

But, you're right. Why focus on those questions and the quiddities of defining "responsibility" when the critical task of digging into the trenches is at hand?

Gas! Gas!

How many of the hostages held in Iran died? I'd say Carter's diplomacy worked pretty well. If YOUR argument that he shouldn't have allowed the Shah into the US for medical care?

How many soldiers were killed in that Barracks in Lebananon? What did Reagan do about?

Iran Contra? What was that about?

"Unless you're a big fan of NAFTA, the WTO, and globalization."

I don't agree with his objectives, but he certainly achieved them.

"How about the Agreed Framework that was going to solve the nuclear weapons threat from North Korea?"

It did solve it, until Bush came along and decided to start calling North Korea names.

How about winning their hearts and minds?

That wasn't a diplomatic strategy. It was military strategy in South Vietnam. The diplomatic strategy was Nixon's. It failed.

This is more Republican re-writing of history. But do you notice how many of those one line descriptions are based on fictional accounts? The same thing is going on with 911. They are busy re-writing history to blame Clinton and the Democrats for 911.

<h1></h1>

Hey, how's it going, trolls? You sound like you been smokin' too much bandwidth.

LOOK: BOYCOTT Cable TV. Call up and cancel your subscription. Blame ABC. It'd only take about a hundred people in one market in one week. It'd kill. ABC'd be toast.

Durbin calls on affiliates to pull plug on drama

September 9, 2006

If ABC won't cancel "The Path to 9/11," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday, local ABC stations should.

Durbin is one of several Senate Democrats ...

<h1></h1>

Boycott cable tv? Yep, there's an answer, by gosh. Um...doesn't ABC, like the other major networks, BROADCAST? I don't think that most folks need to have cable, DirecTV, or DISH in order to receive the transmission. I do think that you've shown yourself to be an idiot.

While I am loathe to rise in Tenskey's defense, the cable companies national adoption rate exceeds 90% (where available).

While many are able to access the networks, OPB, and a few hispanic/religious/shopping channels with rabbit ears, most Americans now receive the networks on their cable input (we have both, in case The Revolution is only broadcast the old-fashioned way).

That said, a boycott resulting from protected freedom of expression seems like a dumbass idea.

So long as collecting dollar bills with the crack of her naked derriere is still protected speech, it seems like a boycott of any docu-drama is a bit over the top.

can we focus our energy to create a "proper" history? Is that even possible?

No, isn't that obvious? All we can get is the partisan report of the 911 commission constructed to allow shifting blame off the Republican administration onto Clinton and the Democrats. That's why we are in this mess.

While I used the term history, I used it loosely. We are really talking about fictionalized reporting of recent current events to achieve partisan political goals. But the story graphically told in this movie will be the story of actual events for those who see it. They simply have no way of sorting out the dramatizations from the actual facts.

Tell me if "successful foreign policy" even belongs in the same paragraph as the names of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, or Al Gore? And going to State Funerals doesn't count.

As for what might have been, I shudder at the thought of Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, or John Edwards trying to react to the 9/11 paradigm shift without appearing too reactive, or risk alienating all those nice muslims in France.

I would rather have Dennis Kucinich sitting in the Oval Office than John Kerry, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton. At least then you'd have a decent chance of him developing a Napoleon Complex, and he would probably get along famously with Hugo, Fidel, and Jong Il.

I'm curious to see how blame is ultimately assessed in this dramatization.

Of course it would be incorrect to lay all the blame at the doorstep of the previous administration (and even more incorrect to stop with one cadre or political party), but by the same token it wouldn't necessarily be just to focus that same blame on the current administration.

Although much of the current firestorm and debate revolves around a few highly charged scenes that presumably single out the Clinton administration, we will ultimately want to look (that is, if we watch - I know some are boycotting, and that's all fine and to the good) at the moral calculus that comes into play.

I'm not sure that an avowedly anti-Clinton dramatization could make it to air. And, as the case may be with all of the edits taking place as a result of complaints, we can probably expect it to be a shadow of its former, (possibly) more sinister incarnation.

Just how strongly will this dramatization push?

It seems that everyone on this post has forgoten a key fact. Everyone is either accusing Clinton or Bush for 9/11. Yes both might have had a role in helping prevent or reduce the damage of 9/11, but at the end of the day Bin Laden ordered it and 19 ( I believe I'm correct in that number) men boarded the planes, hijacked them and ran them into buildings. So lets start blaming 9/11 on Bin Laden and the terrorests and not anyone else.

Amen, 17yearold. That's a sound example of responsibility.

Hey, Jon.

Here's a reference for you, it's called the 9/11 Commission Report. Read it.

While not perfect, it is considered the official report on the events leading up to September the 11th, you know, instead of something written by one of Rush Limbaugh's buddies.

Jesse, you dont have to be a jerk...(or maybe you do, I dunno).

I was actually asking for a source to help with my decision since everyone here seems to have information I cannot find outside of partisan bitching and biased reporting from either side. I also havent seen the ABC program yet (as most here havent, Im sure.)

And just because I question you, you assume I listen to or read anything by that blowhard idiot druggie Rush Limbaugh? Pull your head out and breath some clean air for a while.

From the main column... Is it ABC's goal to indoctrinate students with its faulty version of history?

Why should they be any different? We should all be used to it by now. Textbook publishers have been doing it for decades...

<h1></h1>

MSNBC poll on government complicity in 9/11 - 56% say yes!

With more and more people from all walks of life, including government officials, CIA personel, military, teachers, scientists etc. coming out and saying there is no way the government theory is true, this issue is breaking through big time! The question is:

Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved?

so far there are 22,000 responses and 56% say yes, 32% say no, and 12% not sure

<hr/>

<h1></h1>

--- BOYCOTT KATU TV & ABC ---

Because of KATU's ties to ABC, I will be asking family and friends to boycott all KATU programming from now on. WHY? : Because the airing or planned airing of the 9-11 mockumentry, is such an insult to social justice and such a blatant attempt at slander and deceptive lies. Particularly after this latest barage of obscene propaganda from the Bush Regime, aimed at promoting the war to the American public. Everyone that has looked at this German-Stle Propaganda Film has determined that it is in total contradiction to the 911 commission report, and that it is nothing more than a right wing crafted bit of propaganda produced by republicans that are running scared about the possibility of a newly elected democratic congess ordering investigations that will surely send many of them to prison.

CALL KATU ADVERTISERS AND GET OUT AND PICKET - 09.Sep.2006 22:16 - SCHOOLTEACHER

Dear Friends: Other actions to consider are watching KATU and make a list of their advertisers. Call these folks up and tell them you won't shop there anymore if they continue to advertise on KATU. Call KATU and tell them about it. Start with Binyon Optical, Sleep Country USA, Sleep Dentistry, etc. and ...

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

Welcome to the web site that CNN, FOX News & MSNBC don’t want you to see!

Corporate News Media - There is blood on your hands!

1/2 the Story = 1 Complete Lie. IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT STILL BE ALIVE HAD THE CORPORATE MEDIA NOT BETRAYED THEM!

There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil. - Walter Lippman

A SINGLE MOMENT OF TRUTH

Mouths are agape and praises are flowing. ... Imagine! For the first time in five years, a handful of reporters and television pundits actually told the truth.

For the first time in five years, the Bush administration was publicly accused of being inept and dangerous and deceptive. Finally, some reporters who could no longer deny the obvious ...

Only it’s too little, too late. Thousands are dead in Louisiana because no one asked questions when they should have been asked. ... In the past few years, so many lives might have been saved, not only in New Orleans – but in so many parts of the world, had the media only raised the questions they was morally obligated to ask. The dead are dead, and they had no one in the corporate media .... The silence of the news networks has been shamefully deafening and will remain predictably so for a long time.

But for a moment, imagine the numbers of people who might have lived had the corporate media not betrayed them. Imagine what might have been had George Bush and his band of thugs been confronted at every turn by the hard questions that should have been asked by honorable journalists? Just imagine what might have been if this administration had been held accountable for its lies and deceptions by the news networks and the press corps. Imagine how many thousands of people might still be alive. Imagine how many maimed bodies might still be whole. Imagine how much suffering might have been avoided. Just imagine.

Cancel Your Subscriptions - The Time Has Come WE MUST STOP FUNDING THE ENEMY AND THE ENEMY IS OUR CORPORATE MEDIA! We cannot continue to battle the beast while we finance its very existence!

Successful mobilization of the masses by organizations such as Moveon.org has proved two things; 1. Congress does not represent its constituency; and 2. Protests and petitions do not work!!!

During these past 5 years, the American people have spoken out time and time again only to be completely ignored by those who are supposed to represent them .... They represent only their sponsors, the corporations and other money-based centers of influence that finance their careers.

We are not going to use this space to list the surreal state of media affairs as it exists today. This web site has more than 350 pages of reference material if you need a refresher course. ... The amount of information that has been withheld from or misrepresented to the public is beyond criminal at this point. Our democracy, our environment, our economy and our humanity can not survive if the people of this nation continue to be drawn into the fictional world created by the corporate media.

The time has come to use the only legal and non-lethal tool left available to the public. We must counter the weapons of the power elite that has hijacked our democracy and taken control of the nation. Believe it our not, that tool is MONEY! In this case, however, we are not asking you to spend your money; we are asking you to withhold it!

WE MUST STOP FUNDING THE ENEMY - AND THE ENEMY IS OUR CORPORATE MEDIA!

TvNewsLIES is calling for an all out, 100% boycott of corporate news. We are asking our readers to do the following:

1. Cancel all subscriptions to the corporately owned newspapers & magazines that have been complicit in deceiving the public about the many crimes committed by the Bush administration ...
2. Call your cable company and cancel the following news channels: ...

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

If You Get Your News from the Mainstream Media, Just Shut Up and Listen!

Millions of uninformed Americans form opinions every single day about vital issues that affect all our lives. Sadly, they base their views on garbage they've collected from the mainstream news networks. No wonder everything is as screwed up as it is! Maybe the sheeple of America could learn something from this article. It's past the time for good manners... not when we're on the brink of another war in Iran that, once again, the masses know nothing about.

Just Shut Up and Listen!!! Advice to the Uninformed From TvNewsLIES

It's very important in life to know when to shut up. -- Alex Trebek

THE ADMONITION Enough! Just stop. You've had your say over and over and over. You've repeated yourself ad nauseum for years without making an iota of sense. You've accomplished nothing constructive, absolutely nothing. You've repeated the same nonsense over and over without knowing a single fact. So just cut it out. Now it's time to close your mouth and open your ears.

Just shut up and listen!

All this time you've ignored people who know things you can't even imagine. You've shut your eyes and your mind to people who have spent years gathering information and checking out their sources. You've dismissed people with skills and credentials you can't even pronounce. And you've demeaned people with knowledge and experience you can't even come close to.

All this time you've refused to hear a single thing they've said. You've strutted around like an arrogant peacock, believing you knew more than they. You had no basis for what you claimed to know. You just decided it was true. What unadulterated stupidity. It's time to stop being a total idiot.

It's time to just shut up and listen.

THE VACUUM You probably don't even know it, but there's a huge, blank space in your information data base. So much has happened in this country about which you know absolutely nothing. So many lies have been told and so much has been kept secret that you are simply wandering in the dark. So much of what you should know and what you have a right to know has been denied you. And yet you foolishly claim to know what is going on.

Not so. You know almost nothing that is real about your own country or the world. Almost nothing.

Absent a specialized background, you would never dream of challenging your doctor's diagnosis or outguessing your auto mechanic. You wouldn't even claim to know more than someone who spent years developing a hobby you never had. If you wanted to learn to fish, you'd most probably listen to the instructions of an experienced angler.

So what in hell makes you such an expert on the crimes of the Bush administration?

You haven't done the research. You haven't even asked the questions. But most important, you haven't taken a minute to listen to the people who have. You haven't checked out the evidence that has been unearthed and you refused to listen to those who unearthed it. You have no basis for your own conclusions, and yet you ridicule anyone who seeks the truth. But for some unexplainable reason you believe everything your President and his cohorts tell you, even if everything they tell you is a lie.

You believe them even though you know that have lied to you over and over and over.

So just shut up and listen for a minute. For starters, take a look at what you DON'T know, even though you pretend you do. Take a good close look and cringe at your lack of facts and real news and vital information. Here is our SHORT LIST of things you DO NOT KNOW: ...

If you find your ignorance of the issues acceptable, go for it. If you find it abhorrent and totally opposed to the democratic concept of an informed electorate, forgive the discourteous nature of our reprimand and please, just shut up and listen.

THE SOLUTION First, understand that there is hope for you. But also understand that it's too late for courtesy or good manners. This nation is rapidly approaching a dangerous brink which may take us all into an abyss from which we will not recover. So, please take us very seriously. The solution lies in your willingness to just shut up and listen.

Shut up about things you know nothing about and get informed. Shut up about the ranting blather of right wing radio hosts who are just as uninformed as you .... And most of all learn to say "I don't know," instead of repeating the distortions and lies and garbage you've been conned into believing. If you can't do that, just shut up. Please, just shut up.

Once you've been able to stop spreading misinformation and to stop supporting policies about which you know nothing, go on to the next step. For your own sake, LISTEN. Listen to people who know because they've taken the time to research and validate the facts....Try; really try to listen with an open and questioning mind.

The information is out there. You are reading this on the Internet, the most incredible information source in history. The facts are at your fingertips. Find them.

Deal with the painful reality that you DO NOT KNOW what is happening around you, and understand that your stubborn resistance to new information will be your own downfall in the long haul. Until you make some attempt at rehabilitation, just stop. We've had enough. You've done your damage, so just stop.

There is no other way to say it. If you can't back up what you parrot so stupidly, just stop. If you can't explain why you believe what you do without some substantive and meaningful backing, just stop. Just stop.

That's all there is to say. All that remains is a last echo of the advice we offer, and the hope that it reaches even one of the many uninformed Americans among us:

Just shut up and listen. It's time.

(homepage: http://tvnewslies.org)

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

Lastly, whoever the idiot is who doesn't know the Must Carry Rule, enacted for these Republican fascists' propaganda media, causes local broadcast stations such as KATU Big Liars to receive a slice of your Cable TV monthly payment, should stop 'idiot' name-calling of people who do know.

<hr/>

Hey, how many Dem candidates are going to waste our donations to their campaign coffers spending it to buy ad time on KATU ?

<h1></h1>

So lets start blaming 9/11 on Bin Laden and the terrorests and not anyone else.

The 911 commission wasn't assessing the moral culpability of the terrorists since it was assumed and they were dead in any case.

. And, as the case may be with all of the edits taking place as a result of complaints, we can probably expect it to be a shadow of its former, (possibly) more sinister incarnation.

The question is whether the shadow is sufficient. Mixing lies and truth so that people can't distinguish them is sufficient to shift political responsibility off the current administration.

Clinton clearly used military force against terrorists, but he did it in a much more selective fashion than Bush. I remember a comment from Clinton was when told there was evidence found that bin Laden was trying to kill him when he was president, "That's fair, I was trying to get him." Clinton was unsuccessful. But this film apparently is trying to portray that as a political failure rather than an operational one.

As long as they label the film as "fictional" and as a "dramatization" they can show what ever they want.

to further my comments above, I believe that most people feel that even if we had "got" Bin Laden that a terrorist strike still would of occured in some form, perhaps from another terrorist leader or group. Its sad but inevitable. I also remember the upraor that conservative christian groups had over the movie "The Da Vinci Code"... Lets remember that we are all "average americans" lets give ourselves more credit.

I believe that most people feel that even if we had "got" Bin Laden that a terrorist strike still would of occured in some form

Probably. Its not clear bin Laden was any more essential to the jihadists than any of the "leaders" we keep capturing in Iraq are to the insurgency there.

Lets remember that we are all "average americans" lets give ourselves more credit.

I don't think the problem has anything to do with giving anyone credit. Television does not provide the opportunity for critical thinking, it provides a drama that appeals to people's emotions.

Suspension of disbelief is part of the process of watching TV. The reality of what you are watching is is a rehearsed speech being recorded by camera's on a movie set with lighting. But do you really think it will matter that people "know" that those CIA agents are really actors, that they are actually somewhere on a movie set in Southern California, not in Afghanistan and that they are reading from a script written in consultation with partisan Republicans? I doubt they will give is a second thought. A number of people will believe its true or they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast it.

Does anyone remember the stories about Bill Cosby, "America's favorite father", when his son was killed. How many people stopped to think Bill Cosby is an actor reading lines in a script written by someone else on a movie set? He might be a great, devoted father. He might be an abusive jerk. Only his publicist knows for sure.

Ross

Concern that people will not think critically about a TV program, and that people are not aware that these are actors reading a script proves my point, thank you. You have been able to see through the lies, I think the rest of the nation shares the same ability.

Ross: did Bill Cosby kill his son? If not what makes you think he was an abusive father?

The only thoughts I had at that time were of the tremendous pain that the death of a child would represent, especially in such a horrorific and happenstance manner. It also reminded me that great wealth or fame does not protect celebrities from all the risks that we face on a daily basis.

We have always lived in a dangerous world. Before car accidents, there were people bucked from horses, and passengers ejected from buggies or wagons that turned over. Trains were robbed and banks were blown up: and we battled those criminals the same way we battle terrorism today.

I always wonder if the libs would last two days in the anti-car, anti-capitalism, anti-consumption utopia they seem to be trying to create. A majority of the "voluntary simplicity"

Ross: did Bill Cosby kill his son? If not what makes you think he was an abusive father?

The only thoughts I had at that time were of the tremendous pain that the death of a child would represent, especially in such a horrorific and happenstance manner. It also reminded me that great wealth or fame does not protect celebrities from all the risks that we face on a daily basis.

We have always lived in a dangerous world. Before car accidents, there were people bucked from horses, and passengers ejected from buggies or wagons that turned over. Trains were robbed and banks were blown up: and we battled those criminals the same way we battle terrorism today.

I always wonder if the libs would last two days in the anti-car, anti-capitalism, anti-consumption utopia they seem to be trying to create. A majority of the "voluntary simplicity"

Concern that people will not think critically about a TV program, and that people are not aware that these are actors reading a script proves my point, thank you. You have been able to see through the lies, I think the rest of the nation shares the same ability.

It doesn't matter if they think critically, that's the point. The fact that someone knows intellectually that Bill Cosby is just an actor doesn't prevent them from reacting to a tragedy in his real life as if he was the character on TV. The "news" coverage certainly did.

Pinocchio caught lying The ABC 9-11 pack of lies, and now the lies continue, oh yeah, we will edit the thing for America, but still put out the same crap for the rest of the world?!! Give me a break, they just want to get this out as a pure propaganda piece. What's next, the dvd offered as the un edited European version? Their real slimeballs. Tonight we shall see how much editing ABC actually has done, however as a filmmaker I am well aware that story points woven into the story are hard to fully remove, and some stinky residue always seeps through, and in this case, the falsification of history, that seepage would be despicable. History should not be rewritten to please the political party that holds power, this is the first step towards an Orwellian world. I am very disappointed that the Disney Company, a unique American company would give up it's truly American values to support a partisan lie. The effect on the Disney brand could be devastating. To see my latest cartoon on this topic, go to my website and check it out. http://www.whatnowtoons.com/#058

I guess my question is simple:

Why does anybody feel the need to "dramatize" or "fictionalize" 9/11?

The day itself was dramatic enough for all of us.

And, why fictionalize anything unless you don't want to tell the truth (because of an agenda)?

I watched tonight's broadcast, and thought it was very well done. It clearly demonstrates what I previously believed to be true: prior to 9/11 the United States (in aggregate) was not terribly concerned about the threat of a domestic terror attack.

Those specialists and government officials that were in a position to know better recognized the threat was much more real than the general public. Many bureaucrats viewed the problem as a "Law Enforcement" issue, as do many liberals today. The Republicans (at least the right-wingers you all dismiss with such vitriol) know that we are at war. That's why Americans keep voting for the Republicans in greater percentages than Blue Oregonians are willing to admit.

It's not voter fraud or Diebold's software: we simply trust the Republicans will do a better job of protecting us than the Democrats.

How do you like them apples?

Those specialists and government officials that were in a position to know better recognized the threat was much more real than the general public. Many bureaucrats viewed the problem as a "Law Enforcement" issue, as do many liberals today. The Republicans (at least the right-wingers you all dismiss with such vitriol) know that we are at war. That's why Americans keep voting for the Republicans in greater percentages than Blue Oregonians are willing to admit.

Docudramas are not the best way to tell recent history. Documentary form is better--nonfiction rather than fiction.

One of the actors in the show was interviewed and said he thought it started too late--should have gone back to the late 1980s.

Tom Kean (of the 9/11 Comm. also an advisor to the movie) said on ABC today that if people came away from the miniseries thinking it was all Clinton's fault then the miniseries will have failed.

Jennifer, there is a wonderful old concept called the Golden Rule. If it had been on the screen that an actress playing Jennifer W. said and did things you know you didn't say or do, would you say that was OK because docudramas have the right to fictionalize history?

I'll believe the Sen. Intelligence Comm. report that just came out, or the 9/11 report, or the Hart/ Rudman report, thank you very much. Or even that CBS documentary which was on against the ABC docudrama, which told what happened to actual figures reported on 5 years ago--which one got married, which became a different person with different goals, etc. Of course there is no partisan advantage in telling "just the facts".

How do you like these apples, Mr. T..errr, I mean, Jennifer W?

LT: LT:

Notice that I didn't mention "Clinton" in my comment? You did.

And what makes you think documentaries are devoid of opinion or political bias? Simply deciding what to include (and which "expert testimony" to rely upon) would have been political. I bet you loved Oliver Stone's movie about 9/11? How about JFK?

Every depiction of history contains a series of agreed upon lies, whether it's published in a text book or shown on the nightly news.

History is written by the victors.

It clearly demonstrates what I previously believed to be true: prior to 9/11 the United States (in aggregate) was not terribly concerned about the threat of a domestic terror attack.

Thus clearly demonstrating my point above, people will believe what they see regardless of whether it is labeled fiction or fact.

What I find particularly interesting, is that when the 911 Commission was first put together, the "blue" types bashed it as biased "cheerleading" for the Bush administration. Now they are using it to back up their stance against a TV program?

Im getting dizzy trying to keep up...

I thought the gal who played Maddy Halfbright was a dead ringer. Sandy Burgler looked a bit too tough & professional though. Too bad we don't get to see the seen after 2001 where he is stuffing classified info. into his trousers and the guard at the library says,

"hey Sandy, I've heard that you pack some politial heat but that's ridciculous"

Jennifer W,

The history of the first 6 years of this decade is yet to be written, and scholarly (as opposed to political) history has the habit of saying "this happened, then that happened" with descriptions of the legislation, issues, and personalities of the time rather than using partisan insults like those just posted by Dan.

David McCullough's TRUMAN biography is an excellent example of such scholarly but readable history.

I admire serious people like Sens. C. Hagel, L. Graham, J. Warner, J. McCain. My guess is that history will be kinder to them than to Rove and Cheney and other partisans who seem to think insults are better than solutions.

Wow...Steve....that is an incredible acknowledgement.

Hey everyone, Jr. Detective Steve has used the Wall St. Journal as the bookend of an arguement.

We can all now quote the WSJ editorials with conviction (just as Steve has) to refute the lies and propagand spewed forth by the Oregonian and the NYT.

Thanks Steve!

I was at church last night so I missed the Path to 9/11. Did anyone watch it and if so how was it and how fair was it?

ABC says the ratings are IN and they suck so so bad! Worse than if KATU showed Norm shaving his back. That bad!

ABC placed a distant third out of the four major networks, tying CBS which showed a rerun of a REAL 9/11 documentary that has already been shown THREE times in the US.

So, America looked at what well-known drug fiend Rush Limbaugh said was "Must See TV" and yawned. Loudly.

Oh, did you hear Fox News is doing a new docudrama on The Warren Commission Report.

Yea, Jackie's the gunman.

(hat-tip for that joke to some Net writer who is much funnier than I am over at dailykos.com)

17 year old:

The criticism of the show by those who refused to watch it is about as ridiculous as their derision of the U.S. President as a "chimp" or the wily mastermind of the 9/11 attack.

The 2nd half of the show is on tonight at 8:00 p.m. on Channel 2. I suggest you watch it and make up your own mind on whether the "Path to 9/11 is just a partisan hatchet job. Then go watch Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 and tell us which one appears more biased.

Your comments suggest you have a greater capacity for critical thinking than most of the boneheads on this site.

Ross

"people will believe what they see regardless of whether it is labeled as fact or fiction"... (paraphrasing)

So some how you manage to see behind it, is this a special power that somehow only you have? kinda smacks of elitism, not progressiveness.

So I just finished watching the Path to 9/11 part 2. From what I got it was edited that the Clintion people approved killing Bin Laden but the CIA( george tenet) refused to do so. It attacked the bush people ( spifically rice) for thier counter terrisoim stagetary but was kind in the response to the actually attacks by them. The images of clinton and bush are actually video clips played only a few times. Overall not evil but not well done.

I watched the opening of the show tonite and in the "last time on..." I caught some detail that was counter to what I recalled of the 9/11 report. I watched the opening credits (interesting that a book called The Cell was listed as a source although the original publicity had been that it was based on the 9/11 Comm. Report).

The ABC site is very interesting--all sorts of communications about the film have been posted, along with an article about the controversy. And the ABC News Special on right after the movie (with C. Gibson basically saying ABC News didn't make the movie but was aware of the controversy) struck me as evidence that if enough people make a big deal about something that offends them, it can cause a change in behavior.

Tom Shales did a review for the Washington Post saying the producers gave the complaints by Democrats credibility when they only gave early copies to people like Rush Limbaugh and not to the people actually portrayed in the film.

(For those who have never seen it or forgotten, one repeating scene in All The President's Men is Woodward and Bernstein making phone calls saying "we're running a story tomorrow saying.... and we wanted you to have a chance to comment". Apparently this movie's producers didn't think the living people portrayed in the film deserved that courtesy. And it is possible to discuss that as a courtesy issue without being put in either the R box or the D box. Many people don't see all of life as an ideological battle. )

This is an interesting quote from the ABC article on the controversy: ABC Entertainment says its miniseries, which begins airing tonight, is based on multiple sources, including the commission's report... Commission chairman Tom Kean, a consultant on the film and a Republican, said the larger point of the film is what's important. "Both administrations are faulted," Kean said. "And in the end, I think, you're led to our recommendations."

I watched the end of the movie. It didn't talk about the recommendations, just about the grades given out later.

Oh, and by the way, I already knew the story of O'Neill, the man played by Harvey Keitel. PBS did a documentary (undramatized piece of non-fiction) about him awhile back that was a much better production. But then the intent of that documentary was to inform, not to please ideologues.

ABC-TV has just announced it is going to re-run their barely-viewed slosh-u-drama "Path to 9/11" on Election Eve, as a desperate move to help the GOP which is losing in just about every Congressional race they are in.

ABC-TV will re-name the mini-series, to abide by America's truth-in-advertising law.

The new name?

"Dancing With The Facts".

Sorry to burst your bubble Sid, but "Dancing With The Facts" was the top rated show on Monday night, with an 8.3 share.

I didn't watch the crap on ABC. I did, however, watch the President's "non-political" speech from the oval office.

Wow. Could they be any more blatant? Talk about exploiting a national tragedy! And the fact that ABC played it in the middle of the fake 9/11 show, wow. I woke up this morning still stunned.

What a freaking joke they've become. How desperate.

Ross

"people will believe what they see regardless of whether it is labeled as fact or fiction"... (paraphrasing)

So some how you manage to see behind it, is this a special power that somehow only you have?

Nope. Anyone can do it, there is a off-switch on the television. If you don't see it, you won't believe it.

kinda smacks of elitism, not progressiveness.

So what? It happens to be true. Labeling and name calling only really work on TV and radio.

Ross,

I have read some of your arguments, they are well versed and I may tend to agree with you. however, your elitism is problmatic, I think you may suffer delusions of grandeur.

How WRONG was "Path to 9/11"? American Airlines has written a letter to ABC President Robert Iger protesting al of the BLOOD LIES in the slosh-u-drama.

My favorite mistake happened 45 seconds into the big show.

ABC's movie, written by an Iranian-American Muslim, of all people, shows Mohammad Atta getting on a American Airlines jet in Maine.

Anyone who hasn't been asleep (or have their head up W's butt) knows it was US Airways.

Oops!

No wonder the show lost to overgrown men throwing a ball around.

You should see Ross Williams at City Club. Even though he can barely get his head in the door, we still call him "the twerp". He's a cheesy in need of maturing. :o)

just so you know abc is showing the Path to 9/11 for free at abc.com.

Oooooooh. Free Lies. On the Internet. Thanks!

p.s. The 9/11 report says CIA Director George Tenet REFUSED to kill Osama (with an armed Predator) at the AQ camps in Afghanistan, Clinton era, because there was a private jet on the farm's runway and it belonged to... wait for it... a powerful prince of the United Arab Emirates... one of our friends we don't need... like Pakistan.

You can look it up. If you can read. With your eyes open, that is.