NYT Falsely Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Lewinsky Distracted

[cal04]

NYT Falsely Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Lewinsky Distracted Clinton Admin From Terrorism

From the New York Times review of Path to 9/11:
Laying Blame and Passing the Buck, Dramatized
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/arts/television/08path.html?hp&ex=1157688000&en=4e390dd59eea451a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

What the 9/11 Commission actually says (pg. 118):

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

This is what happens when people learn about the 9/11 Commission by watching Path to 9/11.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/nyt-lewinsky/

[NYCGirl]

1. Certainly the TV critic is wrong (perhaps she doesn't know any better?),

but I begrudgingly admire the rest of that paragraph, not quoted by Think Progress:

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat. But in hindsight, surely the right-wing groups who drove for impeachment must look back at their partisan obsession with shame, like widows sickened by the memory of spats about dirty dishes and gambling debts.

[Vogon_Glory]

2. Would that it were true...

<<But in hindsight, surely the right-wing groups who drove for impeachment must look back at their partisan obsession with shame, like widows sickened by the memory of spats about dirty dishes and gambling debts>>

Would to Divine Providence that that was true! Unfortunately, the majority of the evidence seems to indicate that the right-wingers engrossed in bringing down the Clinton administration are morally blind and have no sense of shame or guilt about their role in easing the al Qaeda plotters' efforts to successfully prepare for and implement the September 11th attacks.

[Kagemusha]

3. Perhaps it's what the TV critic would like to believe. Y'know, truthiness

Colbert is such a visionary.

[Democrats_win]

5. Wingnuts put partisan witch hunt ahead of America. Make them pay!

Every American knows this!

[baldguy]

13. If they were descent, honorable people whose first loyalty is to America.

"...surely the right-wing groups who drove for impeachment must look back at their partisan obsession with shame..."

But, we know they're disloyal partisan hacks who, like Stalin, put their party ahead of their country.

[Erika]

4. Why hasn't W captured OBL?

The GOP need to answer that question and quit the the nit picking on Clinton.

What was W's speech " OBL wanted dead or alive"

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Well, to be fair...

it is hard to concentrate on other things when receiving oral sex. :evilgrin:

I'm just sayin'... :shrug:

[RamboLiberal]

7. This is the line that has me ROFL from the Review

But in hindsight, surely the right-wing groups who drove for impeachment must look back at their partisan obsession with shame, like widows sickened by the memory of spats about dirty dishes and gambling debts.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:banghead: Someone needs to clue this reviewer to the fact that Repukes don't have a conscience.

[rman]

8. looks like the author Alessandra Stanley is a partisan hack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Stanley

Alessandra Stanley is an American journalist. In 2002 she became the television critic for the New York Times. She was previously co-chief of the paper's Moscow bureau. <1> She was also briefly stationed at the Times's Rome bureau.

There have been some complaints regarding the accuracy of her reporting. <2>, <3> Her column of September 5, 2005 drew particular attention. Discussing coverage of relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina, Stanley wrote that Geraldo Rivera "nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety." <4> Rivera complained that the story was inaccurate and threatened to sue. The executive editor of the Times, Bill Keller, reviewed the videotape on which Stanley based her account, and concluded that no correction needed to be run, a decision for which he was faulted by the paper's Public Editor, Byron Calame. <5>

[NYCGirl]

12. She busted Rivera for the Fox camera hog he is — that's a good thing! NT

[elehhhhna]

9. I think the problem was really Bush sucking off the Saudis.

just saying.

[The Stranger]

10. New York Times was infested by that fucking wretch Judith Miller.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. More like the Lewinsky scandal distracted Republican's

Doesn't anybody remember "Wag the Dog"? Republican's were so intent on trying to get Clinton as a payback for the Nixon impeachment that they didn't even notice or care about anything else. Perhaps they should re-release the movie to refresh everyone's memory about how partisan and bitter the GOP was during the 8 years of peace, prosperity and competence we had under Bill Clinton.

[Festivito]

14. Political hacks are sticking out like sore thumbs. Swift-attacks with lies

How RepubliCON.

[Julius Civitatus]

15. She blames Clinton for the 93 WTC bombing, but exempts Bush from 9/11

What I found most revolting about her review of this crap-o-mentary is that yes, Stanley excused the Bush administration for any responsibility on 9/11 with that lame and distasteful "school shooting" analogy. Poor little Bush, he was only 9 months into his tenure, and that dirty Clinton was just too busy servicing Lewinsky.

But one paragraph earlier, she BLAMED CLINTON for the 1993 WTC bombing, which took place less than a month within Clinton's tenure.

Chimpy is untouchable, and blameless. He is responsible for nothing and the buck stops nowhere within ten miles of the Golden Boy.

The NY Times should APOLOGIZE for this review, which is riddled with historic distortions and lies.