Wednesday, September 27, 2006

What Bush Didn't Do Before 9/11

Special investigation by the Keith Olbermann and the Countdown team on what Bush did and didn't do before 9/11 about the al Qaeda threat.

Cafferty Sounds Off On Bush's Foreign Policy

Jack Cafferty went off script and off the meter against President Bush today. Wolf leads into the Cafferty File with an interview of Afghan President Hamid Karzai responding to Pervez Musharrafs accusations that he is turning a blind eye to terrorism and that Pakistan is much more secure than Afghanistan. Jack sounds off like only Jack can saying that the reason Pakistan is safe and secure is because they don't have foreign armies running around. He goes on to say that Afghanistan wouldn't have a narco-state or a resurging Taliban if we didn't sent our forces to Iraq and leave that country to collapse. In sum, Bush "cut and run" from a real terrorist threat to get us into a war based on false pretenses that is creating more enemies. Brilliant foreign policy.

Iraq Study Group Playing Politics By Not Playing Politics

On March 15, 2006, Congress announced the formation of the Iraq Study Group charged with delivering an independent assessment of the situation in Iraq. The ISG is led by longtime Bush confidant James A. Baker and 9/11 Co-Chariman Lee Hamilton.

The two held a press conference last Tuedsay to announce that they have nothing to annouce. In order to keep the grim outlook in Iraq -- the most crucial issue in the November election -- out of the election, the group will not release it's report til after the 110th Congress is seated. Could this be the second NIE Rep Harman talked about? This ordeal has NYT Wiretapping scandal written all over it. By withholding this report from the public til after the election (when it won't make a difference) the Baker-led group is keeping valuable information from the voters that could very well alter the election. Well, I guess that's the idea.

Although Mr. Baker insists "we have said from Day One that we were going to report after the midterm election", he, in fact, said on Day One -- the commission's launch on March 15, 2006 -- that "we have not set a time frame" and that "we may come forward with some interim reports."

As Dana Milbank notes:

As a general rule, it's a bad idea to call a news conference if you have nothing to say. It's worse if you announce that answers are urgently needed but then decline to provide any.

FOX News Disingenuously Blames Jamie Gorelick for 9/11

This has to be one of the grossest examples of FOX News bias and contempt for journalism you'll ever see. 9/11 Commissioner and former #2 at the Justice Department in the Clinton Administration, Jamie Gorelick, appeared on FOX's Studio B to discuss the 9/11 Commission report and how it matched up to the Clinton Wallace interview.

In typical FAUX fashion, the interview quickly changes to accusations of negligence on the Clinton administration's part. The host even sets the interview up by saying, after a short and misleading clip from the interview, that the 9/11 Comission found Clinton "didn't do enough to get Osama bin Laden." Watch attentively and you'll notice him looking over to his producers who are prompting him to provoke Gorelick with patently false & partisan-injected propaganda. "Washington Times is reporting that you're going to appear before a new 9/11 commission"? Are you kidding me? This is even worse than what Wallace tried with Clinton although the result was the same; complete smackdown.

Gorelick sets the record straight and smashes a favorite right-wing talking point -- this notion of the "Gorelick memo" in 1995 that erected a "wall" that restricted interagency intelligence sharing. This is a complete crock. The "wall" had existed since the 1980's therefore predating both her tenure and her memo. Furthermore, it came out during the 9/11 Commission hearings that Ashcrofts Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, RENEWED the terms of the Gorelick memo in August 2001. If the Wall was such a monumental problem, why was the Ashcroft Justice Department adopting Gorelick's own interpretation and guidelines into their operation?

FOX has no shame. They're still on top but at least some people are waking up.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Daily Show Rips Cable News for Clinton Coverage

Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee weigh in on the FOX-Clinton interview. Jon makes an astute point which the responsible, serious mainstream media seems to miss; Clinton's record on bin Laden is strong. Much stronger than Bush who is STILL not doing anything about him. The CIA shut down their bin Laden Unit in July and a recent article says the trail has gone "stone cold." Then, we have this report that says Pakistan signed a deal with the forces who control the area where bin Laden is believed to be hiding (or dying depending on how gullible you are) Yea...REAL serious about terrorism. This guy did kill 3000 Americans, no?

Generals Blast Bush for Iraq Failures

Today the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on the conduct and planning failures of the Iraq War. This minority panel, which has no subpoena power, has conducted more oversight of the Iraq War in three short meetings than the GOP-Controlled Congress has in 3 1/2 years. Whether it be manipulation of pre-war intelligence, Halliburton defrauding the American taxpayers or the egregious leadership failures they examined today, the DPC is the only government body that seems to give a damn about the myriad failures that have gotten us where we are today.

Testifying before the panel were: Major General John R.S. Batiste who was the senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Major General Paul D. Eaton, who was responsible for training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, and for rebuilding the Iraqi police force in 2004; and Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, who was responsible for establishing bases for the newly reconstituted Iraqi armed forces in 2004. These men -- some of whom retired early out of principle -- exemplify the moral clarity and integrity that is so desperately

With the exception of Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina, no Republican has joined the Committee in any of it's hearings. Yet, they've somehow convinced the American people -- by margin of 10% -- that they'll be safer under Republican leadership. Does allowing the Bush administration to operate without scrutiny really make us safer? Shouldn't we be holding them accountable for the monumental policy blunders that have played right into the enemies hands? It's a sad day in America.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

President Clinton Speaks the Forbidden Truth

On September 10, Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet The Press that the Bush Administration would do "exactly the same thing" in Iraq, even if they knew there were no WMD's.

When Larry King asked President Clinton about this statement and what he would do knowing that there were no WMD, Bill said "of course" Cheney would say that because "the evidence has been made clear now" that he and the other neocons "did not care" whether Saddam had WMD or any involvement in 9/11.

None of this is secret to anyone who's been paying attention for the past few years, but Clinton then got even more candid and channeled left-wing intellectuals like Noam Chomsky when he utterred the following forbidden truth:

"...I think they thought [the Iraqi invasion] might clean their own skirts a little since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible, he did when he had the full support of the Republican administrations in the 80's -- of which Dick Cheney was a part. [...] but much of what [Saddam] did in using chemical weapons and killing innocent civilians and all the terrible things he did in the 1980's, he did without a peep of criticism from some of the same people who have prosecuted this war."

We've all seen the video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, but the mainstream press -- except for Frank Rich who wrote about the meeting earlier this month -- seems to have selective amnesia when they condemn Saddam Hussein for his atrocities and fail to acknowledge that he did so with the tacit (and sometimes outright) support of the Reagan administration.

While it should come as no suprise that our lapdog press consistently fails to mention this inconvenient fact, it's important to remember the true history of the relationship instead of the revisionism the Bush administration -- and, seemingly, the press -- would like us to believe.

Friday, September 22, 2006

President Clinton sat down with Keith tonight to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative and a host of other topics. Keith asks the former President an "unrealistic political hypothetical": If George Bush called you up to ask for your advice, what would you tell him?

Bill gives a great, two-pronged diplomatic answer: (a) push hard for a Palestinian state and to change the American image in the Middle East and (b) drop the unilateralism and re-engage with our allies.

Diplomacy and multilateralism, Bill? We're talking about George Bush here.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Colbert's Winning GOP Strategy: Lose in November

Colbert has an idea on how keep a Republican in the White House in 2008: He say's the GOP should promote their shortcomings, lose this election and run on the "do-nothing" Democratic Congress elected in 2006. Sounds fool-proof.

Stephen touches upon Diebold, Terry Schiavo, Barry Manilow and Bob Ney in the way only he can.

Colbert: You Rebulicans are the party of Jesus...

Bullet: And will be crucified on 11/7

Prominent Conservative pundits like Joe Scarborough and other right-wing publications have been pushing this argument lately. Do they genuinely think it will good for the party? Or are they just worried? You decide.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

CNN's Michael Ware: President Bush and Commanders "Divorced from Reality"

In an exclusive interview today, President Bush told Wolf Blitzer that he "rejects the notion that [Iraq] is in civil war" and that he "can't learn it from the newscasts" and instead trusts "the commanders on the ground" for their assessments. Soledad O'Brien, sitting in for Paula Zahn, asks Baghdad Correspondent Michael Ware how he perceives the situation on the ground.

Ware, who always tells it like it is, finds it laughable that Bush cites General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad as reliable sources for honest assessments, saying that:

"These are men who could not be more divorced from the Iraqi reality. They very much live within a bubble. Be it physically within the Green Zone or be it within the bubble of heavy US protection. This is true even for their advisors, and for the commanders and the American soldiers....It's very different than living amongst [the Iraqis]."

So, instead of listening to people like Ware who are actually embedded with the Iraqi people themselves, the President relies on the judgment of military commanders and US ambassadors who travel with Secret Service-like protection within the fortified 'Green Zone'. Of course Casey and Khalilzad -- and, thus, President Bush -- don't see civil war; they're all out of touch with the true "Iraqi reality".

How can the President possibly maintain that Iraq is not in civil war even in the face of US Military reports like this?

Hear no civil war, see no civil war, speak no civil war, I guess..?

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Iraq For Sale: Interview With Director Robert Greenwald

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald joined Keith tonight to talk about his new movie Iraq for Sale and the egregious war profiteering of Halliburton and subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in Iraq. Keith starts the segment off by reporting on the story of Ray Stannard -- the Halliburton employee wounded in a convoy attack in Iraq who was offered the Defense of Freedom Medal on the condition that he sign away his right to sue Halliburton. Of course, Halliburton misled Stannard by saying that the document was a medical disclosure form when, in fact, it frees them from all legal liabilities.

Greenwald, who held a press conference with Democratic Policy Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND) yesterday on the lack of war profiteering accountability, talked briefly about Henry Waxman -- the Ranking Member on the Committee of Government Reform -- who, if the Democrats take the House in November, will use his newfound subpoena power to hold these people accountable.

Some of the highlights -- or, more appropriately, lowlights -- of Senator Dorgans hearing on Iraq Contracting Practices can be seen here.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Did CBS Restrict Mahers "freeSpeech"?

During last Friday's episode of Real Time, Bill Maher told his panel that CBS restricted him to a list of "approved topics" for his upcoming appearance on the Evening News' "free speech" segment after he initially wanted to talk about religion. CBS denied Maher's version of the events saying:

"Bill Maher was never told that he couldn't discuss religion in a 'freeSpeech' segment. In fact, 'freeSpeech' has already addressed religion and we expect others will in the future."

Maher joined Joe Scarborough last night to talk about the whole episode and had some choice words for President Bush and the neo-con "sentamentalists" who've completely botched the Iraq invasion/occupation:

"And by the way, when people like me ask questions about; Does it still make sense to have these troops under fire? That's supporting the troops. Asking for a plan is supporting the troops. Sitting around and parsing the meaning of civil war...that's not supporting the troops...that's supporting the President, and hes not a troop, he just plays one on tv."

Olbermann's Special Comment on Bush's Rose Garden Press Conference

Keith went after President Bush again tonight after his irate press conference last week where he said "it's unacceptable to think.." in response to a question about Colin Powells letter in which he wrote that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

"The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence."

Transcript at Bloggermann...

Halliburton Hard At Work...Defrauding The American Taxpayers And Poisoning Our Troops

Today the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a meeting on contracting practices in Iraq where former Halliburton and KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton) employees detailed personal instances they witnessed of waste, fraud and abuse perpetrated by Vice-President Cheney's former company.

Senate Policy Committee Ranking Member Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed outrage over the lack of accountability by the GOP-controlled Congress of war profiteering by Halliburton and their sweetheart no-bid contracts.

Not only is Halliburton abusing and taking advantage of American taxpayer dollars, but they're also putting our troops in danger by supplying them with water that is "more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River."

Halliburton also offers wounded employees the US Defense of Freedom medal on the condition that they sign away their right to sue. Of course, they mislead the wounded employees by saying that the document is a medical disclosure form when, in fact, it frees Halliburton from any legal liabilities.

Supporting the troops goes far beyond sticking yellow ribbons on the back of your car and parrotting the GOP mantra. How about holding Halliburton accountable for knowingly providing our troops with toxic water and wasting our money? For all their talk of being the party that "supports the troops", the Republicans don't seem to want to investigate these serious allegations.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Howard Dean on FOX News Sunday & the Specter Proposal

Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean joined Chris Wallace today to reflect on the five year anniversary of 9/11 and the war on terror.

I thought Dean did a good job but one thing bothered me; he hasn't read the Specter proposal. HOW HAS HE NOT READ THE SPECTER PROPOSAL? Or at least Glenn Greenwald like Senator Feingold?

The Specter-WH "compromise" would effectively legalize the President's illegal wiretapping. It's allows the secret FISA court to determine the programs legality even though federal courts have already ruled that it is illegal. For christs sake, FISA Judge James Robertson resigned in protest last December after the NSA story broke.

From ABC News:

"A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court."

The last thing we want is a secret court overseeing a secret program of a secret administration in secret! It's that simple. Congress and the courts have a role to play here. What we really need is for the Congress to fulfills it's constitutionally-mandated responsibility of oversight that it abdicated with the 2002 GOP-takeover and for the courts to be free from political pressure to rule honestly on the program. Congress is barred from speaking about the program but the courts have spoken quite loudly.

Wallace asks Dean if he stands by his Watergate comparison citing the difference as being that Nixon abused his power for "political purposes." That's the whole point -- noone knows WHO the President is spying on because he refuses to let Congress oversee and the courts rule on the controversial program. The only reason we knew Nixon was abusing his power to spy on political enemies was BECAUSE of the Watergate scandal.

The Democrats should be running on a platform of honesty and accountability. The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report this week that shows all of the pre-war intel was WRONG. The Democrats' own inquiry into pre-war intel failures found that it was highly manipulated and politicized. Paul Pillar, top CIA intelligence analyst, and Larry Wilkerson, right-hand-man to Colin Powell over at State, have testified to this already.

Why has noone been held accountable for mistakes that have gotten us where we are today? The incompetence excuse doesn't fly anymore.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

ABC Controversy: WAKE UP People!

Wake up people. This is all an attempt to deflect criticism away from Bush's own record. Read the August 6th 2001 PDB. Read how it warned "bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." Read how it says "FBI information...indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijcaking." Watch Clarke and Tenet's 9/11 Commission testimony. Better yet, watch Secretary Rice's testimony. The negligence is astounding.

While we bicker about whether or not the scenes are bullshit or whether ABC has the "right" to air it, Karl Rove is whistling all the way to the ballot boxes.

Why was the Kerry "swift-boating" so successful? Every military document supported Kerrys version of the events and SBVT were constantly changing their stories. In other words, it was obvious to any clear-thinking person that it was a partisan attack. Nevertheless, Karl Rove was able to paint Kerry, who fought bravely in Vietnam and even won medals, as a coward, and Bush, who went AWOL from the National Guard, as some sort of resolute warrior. So the guy who steps up to fight is weak whereas the guy who couldn't fulfill his obligations in the National Guard -- where he would never see enemy fire -- is strong?

This reminds me of a quote from a great historian, philosopher and war hero:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once..." [pause] "... shame on...". [pause] "Shame on you..." [pause] "If fooled, you can't get fooled again."

A Look Back : Rare September 11, 2001 Briefings

CSPAN 3 has been running 9/11-related programming in twelve-hour blocks for the past few weeks. Today I was able to grab these two press conferences that really piqued my interest: the first is of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Pataki and the second is of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. They were both recorded on the day of the attacks.

I'll post some more thoughts and analysis later. Comments are welcome and if anyone wants a copy of the raw file, email me at

Giuliani/Pataki Press Conference Part 1 - 9/11/01

Giuliani/Pataki Press Conference Part 2 - 9/11/01

Secretary Rumsfeld // Department of Defense Briefing - 9/11/01

What Everyone is Forgetting About 9/11 ABC "Docudrama"

Everyone is forgetting the most important part of his whole debacle:


Kerry fought bravely in Vietnam and won medals. Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. And yet, Karl Rove has people convinced Bush is the warrior. Don't let them do this to the Clinton.

As I noted earlier, this is controversy is most likely a Rovian stunt intended to divert attention away from the BUSH adminitrations record.

Bush has a terrible record on protecting the homeland; 9/11 happenned on his watch.

Contrary to what the administration maintains -- that 9/11 was "a complete surprise attack" -- it is well documented that the threat level was extremely high in the spring/summer of 2001 and both Tenet and Clarke stressed the urgency. This was an unprecedented risk period and the WH sat on their hands.

When Bush and Condi say "noone could have imagined flying planes into buildings," they are either outright lying or criminally negligent. NORAD DID conduct drills before 2001 that anticipated the very same kind of attacks. Read the USA Today article for yourself.

Read the Aug 6th PDB (the highest intelligence briefing the President gets) that warned of the looming threat. It doesn't say time and date but that never happens with intelligence. However, it's a clear warning of "suspicious activity" consistent with a "hijacking." What more do you need to AT LEAST raise awareness at the airports?

See here and here for examples of how seriously the Bush administration took the terrorist threat.

At the very LEAST, the Bush administration is incredibly imcompetent and THAT'S what lead to 9/11. This is on Bush's shoulders.

Step Into President Bush's Bizarre World

I dont even know where to start with this one.

Despite appearing uncomfortable for the entire 20-minute interview, President Bush gave Katie Couric some interesting insight into his thinking in Wednesday's exclusive sit down:

Full Interview: Part 1 & Part 2

Some quotes and thoughts:

BUSH: There – it's – you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it.

Since the Senate Intelligence Committe just debunked that connection, will the President now "adjust" to the "facts on the ground"?

BUSH: [...]And – let me repeat to you what I said about Hitler, just to make sure we get it straight here, that – I said that when a – a person like Osama bin Laden speaks, we better be careful about what he says, listen, pay attention to his words.

Listen to Osama carefully? How about we capture/kill him instead of letting the Pakistanis give him sanctuary?

BUSH: And– and we'll get [bin Laden]. It's just a matter of time. We've got a unit in the CIA who is spending a lot of time thinking about these high value targets.

So the NYT was lying on 4 July when they reported the CIA bin Laden Unit was being shut down?

These one on one interviews reveal how remarkably shallow President Bush is.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Senator Levin Blasts Bush Administration on Pre-War Intelligence Manipulation

Today the Senate Intelligence Committee released its Iraq Intelligence Phase II Report. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) outlines the committees findings which reveal that nearly every justification the adminstration used to rally public support for the war in Iraq was either falsified or exaggerrated. From the purported links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, to the claim that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague, to the links between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein, the Committee concluded that all the claims were based on poor (and sometimes non-existant) sources.

Levin also makes the point that the WH has kept classified certain intelligence reports that in no way compromise sources. He rightfully suggests that they're being kept under wraps because their disclosure would be very embarrasing for the Bush administration.

PDF copies of the report can be found at the Committee's website here

For another strong indictment of pre-war intelligence manipulation, see Tyler Drumhellers story

Thursday, September 07, 2006

My Letter To ABC About the Upcoming "Docu-Drama" Path to 9/11


Instead of fabricating scenes as to how 9/11 was somehow Bill Clinton's fault, why don't you include factual scenes that will give your viewers a more accurate representation of who should be the focus of public criticism and scrutiny? I have four reccommendations:

1. How about a scene from Bush's Crawford ranch where he receives a high level intelligence briefing one month before the attacks (Aug. 6th PDB) that outlined how concerned the CIA was that a bin Laden attack was imminent?

2. Why don't you include the actual 9/11 Commission testimony of George Tenet and Richard Clarke where they admit that the bin Laden intelligence was "single-sourced", unreliable and ultimately George Tenet's decision to act on?

3. How about the 9/11 Commission testimony of Thomas Pickard, acting Director of the FBI in the high threat summer of 2001, where he admits that Attorney General Ashcroft did not want to hear of the the al Qaeda threat?

4. Why don't you "dramatize" how the Bush administration organized private flights out of the country for the bin Laden and Saudi royal families? This is certainly noteworthy because the FBI hadn't gotten a chance to question them and all American flights were still grounded. Perhaps if the FBI was able to fully interrogate them, Osama bin Laden, five years later, would have been apprehended.

What's the point of dramatizing (and fabricating) key scenes? The truth is far more entertaining and shocking.

Thank You.

UPDATE: Clinton Lawyer Bruce Lindsey sends a letter to ABC Chief Bob Iger.

Families of September 11 also issue a letter of their own.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Meet Keith Olbermann - The Edward R. Murrow Of Our Time

In response to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelds accusation that war critics are tantamount to Nazi appeasers and are suffering from "moral and ethical confusion", Keith delivers a powerful commentary in a fashion that would make the late Edward R Murrow proud.

The movie Good Night and Good Luck was based on Murrows story and his showdown with Senator Joe McCarthy during the tense cold-war 1950's.

See here, here, here, and here for more reponses to the Secretarys comments.

Keith Olbermann Dissects Katherine Harris' Senate Campaign

Countdown - September 07, 2006:

Keith Olbermann issues a special report on Katherine Harris' Senate race in Florida where she is trailing incumbent Bill Nelson by 30+ points. That doesn't matter, according to Harris, because you can "make polls say anything."

She should know. Ms. Harris was instrumental in helping Bush secure Florida, and, thus, the presidency, in the hotly contested 2000 election.

Click here to see film-maker Robert Greenwald's amazing exposé of the Florida 2000 election.

From wiki:

As Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Harris presided over the contested 2000 US presidential election in Florida. There were allegations of conflicts of interest and partisan, unethical behavior against Katherine Harris during the 2000 campaign. Harris had been named as Bush's Florida campaign co-chair the year before. Bob Butterworth, the Florida state Attorney General, served as co-chair of Gore's campaign.

Harris certified that the Republican candidate, then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, had defeated the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, in the popular vote of Florida and thus certified the Republican slate of electors. Her ruling was challenged and overturned on appeal by Florida's Supreme Court; this decision, however, was itself reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. That Court ruled (5-4) that Gore's request to extend Florida's statutory deadline for ballot re-counts had no merit, because no Florida law at the time provided for that option. This ruling nullified the state court's decision, upholding Harris' certification. The decision foreclosed any further court challenges by Gore and resulted in Bush's margin of victory in Florida being officially tallied at 537 votes. Therefore, Florida's electoral votes — and the Presidency — went to George W. Bush.

New Poll Finds that 43% of Americans are Braindead

A new CNN poll reveals that 43% of the braindead American public still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

For the last time people, numerous inquiries, including the 9/11 Commission, have concluded that there is NO LINK WHATSOEVER between Saddam and 9/11. Even Bush himself admits it which you will see at the beginning and end of this clip.

Key Scene in ABC's 9/11 Docudrama is a LIE - CIA Director George Tenet

Heres the 9/11 Commission testimony of former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, about what really happenned in Afghanistan 1999 when the CIA was targeting bin Laden. Again,this clip clearly shows that ABC's version of the events is just plain false.

From wiki:
George John Tenet (born January 5, 1953) is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University and former United States Director of Central Intelligence. He submitted his resignation to the President on June 3, 2004, citing "personal reasons". He served as CIA Director from July 11, 1997 to July 11, 2004, when his deputy director, John E. McLaughlin became acting Director. He was one of the longest serving Directors of the Agency.

ABC/Limbaugh Version (via ThinkProgress):

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a "docudrama" called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11."

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded.

Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as "a friend of mine," reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they're on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they're afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed...Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. "Are you kidding?" He asked Berger over and over, "Is this really what you guys want?"

Berger then doesn't answer after giving his first admonition, "You guys go in on your own. If you go in we're not sanctioning this, we're not approving this," and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

Key Scene in ABC's 9/11 Docudrama is a LIE - Richard Clarke

Here's Richard Clarke, fromer counterterrorism tsar from 1973-2003, testifying before the 9/11 Commission about what really happenned in 1999 when the CIA was targeting bin Laden. The clip clearly shows that ABC's version of the events is just plain false.

From wiki:

Richard A. Clarke (born 1951) provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, from 1973 to 2003. Clarke's specialties are computer security, counterterrorism and homeland security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred.

Clarkes Book: Against All Enemies

ABC/Limbaugh Version (via ThinkProgress):

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a "docudrama" called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11."

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded.

Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as "a friend of mine," reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they're on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they're afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed...Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. "Are you kidding?" He asked Berger over and over, "Is this really what you guys want?"

Berger then doesn't answer after giving his first admonition, "You guys go in on your own. If you go in we're not sanctioning this, we're not approving this," and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.