From 2001 thru 2004, how many 'Clinton to blame for 9-11' books came out?

[blm]

And how many of these authors and "journalists" were given significant airtime?

And how many press conferences and lawsuits did Clinton launch to answer the charges?

If you're wondering WHY every Democratic candidate has been stuck fighting the GOP meme that Democrats are weak on terror, it's BECAUSE Clinton never answered these charges for the FIVE YEARS they have existed. THAT gave ABC the cover to launch this movie.


Here's a list of some titles I found.

DERELICTION OF DUTY, by Robert “Buzz” Patterson. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) A top Clinton military aide’s “eyewitness” account of how Bill Clinton compromised America’s national security.


BETRAYAL, by Bill Gertz. (Regnery Publishing, 1999) The Washington Times defense reporter explains “how the Clinton administration undermined American security.”


BREAKDOWN, by Bill Gertz. (Regnery Publishing, 2002) A reporter for the Washington Times describes how “America’s intelligence failures led to 9/11.”


USEFUL IDIOTS, by Mona Charen. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) The columnist and television commentator goes on the attack against liberals who “got it wrong in the cold war and still blame America first.”

THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO AMERICAN HISTORY, by Thomas Woods. (Regnery Publishing, 2004) A conservative interpretation.


SHADOW WAR, by Richard Miniter. (Regnery Publishing, 2004) The author argues that President Bush is winning the war on terror.

LOSING BIN LADEN, by Richard Miniter. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) How—on multiple occasions—Bill Clinton allowed bin Laden to slip through his fingers.



FIGHTING BACK, by Bill Sammon. (Regnery Publishing, 2002) A reporter for The Washington Times recounts the White House’s actions in response to 9/11.

[Mabus]

1. With Barbara Olson gone the numbers aren't as high it would have been

She made a career writing RW garbage and doing interviews.

[blm]

6. A book by Olson came out AFTER 9-11 - a book she was working on at the

time of her death and finished for her. Regnery put it out - attacking Clinton, of course.

[Mabus]

21. and there would have been more had she lived

What's your point?

[blm]

22. Just that there was a book by Olson that added to the pile against Clinton

and the RW tweaked every bit of her death while smearing Clinton, yet AGAIN.

I remember Ted on Larry King Live promoting the book as if it were a tribute to his wife. Sickening. He was dating another woman by then, of course.

[zbdent]

2. It's ironic ... I have yet to find a RW book published prior to

9/12/2001 that mentioned how huge of a threat Osama bin Laden was ... all the threats that they were concerned about was how the President lied under oath and that the smell would never leave the oval office ... oh, and China was the big security lapse.

I did find two references to ObL - In Barbara Olson's "The Final Days" (just in passing), and "American Terrorist" (which is not really a RW book ... was about homegrown terrorist McVeigh).

Now, if you believe the urban legend of Ollie North saying that ObL was the man he feared and Al Gore halted the investigation (not only debunked in Snopes, but by Ollie North himself, no less), you would think that Ollie's published works prior to 9/12/2001 would mention ObL. Nope.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Where was the Republican Congress directing our FBI resources in 1998?

Oh yeah, they were hunting for the WMD (Willy of Mass Distraction). They had hundreds of FBI field agents chasing every RW lie, distortion, and smear trying to impeach him on any grounds. If Clinton had cratered OBL, I can just imagine the RW spin that it was a case of "wag the Dog" and lets refocus on the important stuff...like that WMD.

[blm]

5. Or complain that Clinton attacked Bin Laden because he was a Bush family

friend. The GOPs will twist ANYTHING to make it sound like Clinton was criminal and the poor Bushes and Bin Ladens were victimized.

[zbdent]

11. Hell, when ObL orchestrated the attack on the USS Cole and Clinton's

people handed Bush the info on that - what did the Repukes feel was the important work of the day? Busting ObL???

Nah, the investigations turned to missing W keys from keyboards, Al Gore's people "trashing" the White House offices (if that was criminal, then why ignore documenting the damage?), Gary Condit's missing sex partner, Presidential pardons, the list goes on ...

[blm]

28. Spending time on frayed carpeting than HartRudman Report on Global Terror

that was handed to Bush on Jan 30, 2001.

[blm]

4. Gertz had a general overview in 99 that attacked Clinton and the CIA as

a diminished agency, but didn't focus on Al Qaeda specifically.

[blm]

7. I'm a bumping because this is the ROOT of the ABC matter.

.

[wisteria]

8. You have proven that ignoring the inaccuracies and lies gives them

the green light to continue spreading the untruths. I hope Clinton recognizes this now.

[OnionPatch]

17. I never understood those who say

our side should just ignore the attacks made on us. The reasoning is that addressing them gives them legitimacy, but from what I've seen, ignoring them makes the public think they may be true and you're just hoping they'll go away. I think the Dems (or any politician) should come out swinging everytime these kinds of lies are aimed at them. Refute them and then use the situtation to point out how the other side is willing to lie to America to gain political power.

[blm]

39. Clinton could easily force ABC to give him REBUTTAL TIME since they are

refusing to drop the film.

[beachmom]

9. Yep -- and it keeps coming, even from conservatives who have

given up on Bush. It is indeed a comfort to conservatives that as horrible as Bush is, they can still go to their comfort zone of Clinton bashing:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/quote_for_the_d_4.html

Friday, September 8, 2006

Quote for the Day I
08 Sep 2006 12:20 pm

"I think what they're trying to do is to take the fact the specific scenes portrayed were fictional and to try to refute the underlying reality that the Clinton administration just didn't get it. And by the way, before 9/11 neither did the Bush administration," - 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman. I have no idea why the Clinton administration should get a pass in dithering while a mortal threat gathered in the 1990s. I hope ABC stands firm.



Interesting point, too, BLM, that Clinton essentially never fought back. He has been "swiftboated" for 5 years with barely an utterance to defend himself. If people are going to blame John Kerry for not sufficiently fighting the SBVT in the summer of '04, then Bill is the one who set the precedent. Plain and simple.

[blm]

10. I go back further - the media impeached Clinton and impeachmented Gore

and Kerry and every other Democrat who stuck their necks out.

[zbdent]

12. Gertz's "Betrayal" has absolutely no mention of Osama bin Laden

[blm]

13. Gertz wrote that to establish Clinton as a derelict commander-in-chief.

All part of the setup for PNAC in 2001, imo.

[sandnsea]

14. Yep

I think it has to do with the fact that Clinton wouldn't invade Iraq. Seems like Bob Kerrey had that line of thinking, if I understand him correctly. What's bizarre is that even after Clinton's been proven right about not invading Iraq, these same people still can't admit that they were wrong to say he was too weak to fight. Which is equally ridiculous when you consider Kosovo. But it is true, Republicans are getting away with smearing Democrats because the Clinton people won't stand up and fight. Where IS the book about Wag the Dog and the fight to stop the counter-terrorism legislation?

[ginnyinWI]

15. And these smears led directly to Gore's, and then Kerry's swiftboating

It's like a virus or disease. Untreated, it spread onto more and more Dems. This has got to be wiped out, once and for all.

Hopefully, * and his failed Iraq will be shown to have played a part in curing America of the notion that the GOP is more competent on foreign policy and national defense.

[blm]

24. Clinton needs to do a 2hr press conference and answer EVERY charge with

documentation - enough has come out publically that backs him up - what is he waiting for?

[pa28]

16. This is a nice find.

Interesting how Republicans can insist on "united we stand" and in the the same breath blame Bill Clinton.

[blm]

19. The smoke hadn't even cleared when they started blaming Clinton.

.

[nashville_brook]

18. it's the way of the DLC -- suck... and then suck it up.

[blm]

23. I don't think this has anything to do with DLC and EVERYTHING to do with

Clinton being smeared publically NOW before Hillary tries a run for office.

Would he have kicked up a fuss if this movie was being shown before the 2004 election?

[BootinUp]

27. nonsense.

There is a big difference between books that people must purchase to read and free broadcast television, 5 hours on the 5th anniversary of the attacks and 2 months before an election (that Hillary is not seriously challenged in)

[blm]

29. The books rec'd no airtime? Did his silence help Dems in 2002 and 2004?

.And away from all politics - did his silence help the American people and the rest of the world throughout that time?

And how many HOURS of airtime were all these "expert" authors given to impart their view of history during those years? Or is that nonsense, too?

[BootinUp]

30. I don't want to fight with you blm

If Kerry wanted more help from Bill he would have gotten it I am sure. It was a tough election.

As for 2002, even Bill would have a hard time countering that kind of war drum beating Nationalistic fervor that existed. He did say that the inspectors should be allowed to do their work, he of course favored forcing Saddam to allow inspectors unfettered access. I think he also was trying to follow precedent with regard to not interfering in a really strong way since he was out of office.

[blm]

31. That wasn't the point - Clinton never fought the 9-11 lies blaming him at

any point BEFORE last week. It's not nonsense to assume that he'couldn't find any compelling motivation to counter the lies for the five years prior to this movie release and ask, why now?

[BootinUp]

32. Uh, because the lies will reach a humungo audience now? n/t

[blm]

33. "Dems are weak on terror" meme had a humongous audience for 5yrs.

He chose to not set the record straight.

[BootinUp]

34. I disagree

You discount the commission report, his book, plenty of television appearances by people that were there. I think you are being way to hard on him. There are people here that say we should still not fight the smearing of the Clinton legacy. THAT is what he heard from top democrats. They told him to stay put!!!

[blm]

35. Nobody tells Clinton what to do - he was the one advising Dems to steer

clear of attacking Bush and that they should support Bush in national security areas.

Clinton could have used his book tour to put to bed the lie that he was asleep at the switch regarding terrorism. He spent more time on TV defending Bush and his policies from 2002-2004 than any other Democrat. Read the many DU threads from all Clinton's Larry King appearances during that time.

Clinton even had the chance to talk about the Downing Street Memos when Letterman specifically wanted him to discuss it, and he said he never heard of it and couldn't speak to it - - HORSESHIT! This was almost TWO MONTHS after the DSM came out and their was a senate letter going around for an investigation of the DSM. No way did a newshound like Clinton manage to not hear about the DSM.

[Cobalt-60]

20. Land FIll Material

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. This American Coup did not happen overnight

The neo-cons have been working on this coup since the 1970s. They could not have gotten away with airing Path to 9/11 before they took control of the media and the business industry and the government.

ABC's reaction to the calls from Clinton and the dems in senate and the historians is telling: they don't have to listen to them. The neo-cons are in charge and they are going to do what they damn well please. And what is the recourse? Whining by the weak-kneed left "liberals." (Remember when they were successful in making that a dirty word?)

Remember last year when the terms fascism and Nazi comparisions were used and the neo-cons cried foul and we stopped using them?

Disney will have no consequences. The government will dismiss any lawsuits. The dems in senate are powerless.

I predict: that the dems will not win any seats in Congress. I predict that the media will give credit to the "last minute campaigning" of Cheney on MTP / Bush's speechs, Osma tapes..and really they are only the cover for the stolen election. Diebold.

This is a fascist regime. They are getting bolder and more open about their fascism. We are in deep trouble in America.

[blm]

26. I agree and posted the same many times - they ASSURED themselves of power

long ago by buying control of most broadcast and print media in the 80s and 90s and gaining control of the voting machines.

[treestar]

36. Why do they always get to make the charges and the dems have to

answer them?

Why should Clinton have to answer to BS charges?

Ignore them and ask where OBL is now. What is he doing now?

[blm]

38. Because they now control most media - you think GOPs were buying up

networks and printmedia throughout the 80s and 90s to promote democracy and free speech?

[many a good man]

37. Help me sort out the RW spin...

Clinton weakened the US by his cowardly refusal to invade China and Iraq so Saddam asked his buddy Osama to pull off 911 so the Taliban could invade Poland and become Nazis.

[blm]

40. heh...or something like that.

They spin so much I doubt they even keep their own stories straight with each other.