Update of ABC Boringmentary 9:35 p.m.

Some Arabs just broke into a house and ABC had the Arab dude shout out "Your sister is a bitch!" What? How does ABC know this stupid 'filler' stuff. This is pitiful. Can someone please explain. What country are they in? Who are these people? Ohhhh. It's Ramzi getting arrested. Now I'm catching up......(snore...snore...snore) Wait! Here it is! It's....it's the disclaimer! 1 hour and 34 minutes into the movie....NOW they say IT'S FICTION ! This is weird! Totally weird ! Update coming soon.

Hey ABC! What a boring movie -9/11 Movie Update

I am in shock that ABC spent $30 million dollars on this boring movie. I see why Harvey was not happy. First of all, it's been on for 1 hour and 12 minutes and quite frankly....I'm lost. Who are these people. I didn't know I would have to read the movie. I didn't know Arabs like to disco so much and planned major attacks while boogy downing. It's weird that they would have O'Neil as the main voice or star, since he was one of the first people disgruntled by The Bush Clan. ( I just realized this movie is sooooo boring that I'm blogging while it's on). They should have had commercials. My girl just missed part of the movie because she had to pee. Looks like a B rated movie. A lot of extras so I see why it cost so much. But I'm totally bored! And the sound is bad. I can't even hear what Donnie is saying in his first scene. Well, back to the screen. Update coming soon. p.s. If they keep this up knowone will watch tomorrow....then they'll miss Bush's great speech. $30 million....for what?

Senate Report declares Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda or Bin Laden.

Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for warThere is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.
US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.
Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.
They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.
The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Requests rejected
The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,
Senate report
Senate report 6.8MB
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download the reader here
War rationale laid bare
'Terror war' loses direction
Quick guide: Al-Qaeda
The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.
It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.
'Devastating indictment'
Democrats said the White House was still trying to make the connection between the former Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq.
Less than three weeks ago Mr Bush said in a speech that "Saddam Hussein...had relations with Zarqawi".
Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of these attempts.
White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Terrorists are winning and Mankind as a whole is losing
Sandor, New Jersey, US
Send us your views Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.
Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in the early 1980s and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Wow ! Watch ABC's movie then watch this 9/11 Pentagon video !

Today is the day ABC Television will be broadcasting the $30 million dollar, commercial-free 9/11 movie which has been so highly controversial due to lies within this so-called documantary,docudrama (crockudrama), fictional (lying) movie. We invite everyone to view another little movie (actually just 4 minutes long) which may help us all have a better idea of what truly happened to the Pentagon on 9/11. Sit back, get some popcorn, learn and enjoy. Visit: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main Don't forget to show all of your friends this video. (P.S.) Wonder who paid ABC the $30 million to make their movie since they aren't selling any commercials. Hmmmmmm.

Bush caught lying about the Saddam 9/11 connection

Today the ABC $30 million dollar mini-series will air and we will let it speak for itself. I, for one, encourage the airing of this documentary, docudrama, slash fictional rendition of the what led up to 9/11. Actually, I look forward to this back-firing and igniting more attention to the truth. For your viewing pleasures we have linked a short video which catches Bush in another lie regarding Saddam. Check it out: http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush-caught-lying-saddam-9-11.html Show your friends ! Also, feel free to check out other interesting topics on the site you're being led to. Very eye-opening stuff !

RUSSERT CHEWS OUT CHENEY !

This morning, after a week of disappointment in the American media for not reporting that due to the outcry and British protesting for supporting the George W. Bush agenda and Iraq war, Tony Blair is being force to step down. But this had not been broadcast at all here via American media, although newspapers, websites and TV networks have been broadcasting this ousting as HUGE NEWS all week. But this morning I watched Meet The Press with Tim Russert. His special guest was the one and only Vice Pres. Dick 'Shooter' Cheney. All I can say is....Unbelievable ! This time 'Shooter' didn't have a script like he normally has for his speaches. Russert asked him basic, clear-cut questions and.....man......the answers were just incredible !THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BY RACHEL SKLAR AND APPEARED IN HUFFINGTON REPORT: Good evening and welcome to RussertWatch, a doozy today as Tim Russert hammered Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet The Press," hooked on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 but in reality a solid hour of grilling on Iraq, Afghanistan, and WMDs. It was an incredibly dense show, and more than anything shows how carefully Cheney parses words — no question gets a simple yes or no answer and even while acknowledging that, fine, Iraq was not linked to 9/11 he hammers home the meme of Iraq as a sponsor of terrorism and incipient WMD threat.He manages to answer every question with a "Yes, but..." without making it sound like a "but," trumpeting success in interrogation instead of acknowledging Guantanamo and CIA black prisons, Iraqi democracy instead of the 20,000+ civilians dead in civil strife, and how safe the world is without Saddam Hussein instead of the fact that the administration led the country into war on trumped-up evidence. He also claims not to have read the just-declassified Senate Intelligence Committee report that revealed that intelligence linking Iraq to 9/11 was in fact highly disputed before the invasion. A neat sidestep, that.
My feeling (and that of the blogosphere, it seems) is that Russert did an uncharacteristically tough and dogged job up against Cheney, hammering the main points, bringing up the glaring "gotchas" (with this one there are many: Greeted as liberators, insurgency's last throes, and yep, Saddam's defnitely got WMDs). Reading Nora Ephron's post earlier, I was surprised to find that she thought Russert went easy on Cheney, and upon consideration I can see why: Everything he hammered Cheney on was easily part of the public record, and thus easily prepared for to be glibly countered. In his quest to cover everything from Iraq to Afghanistan to WMDS to midterms to rumors of Cheney's flagging influence to poor peppered Harry Whittington, Russert missed potential opportunities to play the "Yes, but" game right back. Even so, he brought up the main points and pounded away at them bluntly, refusing to accept Cheney's first and often second effort at dissembling. And let's not forget how skilled Cheney is: The man is the strong, silent type only until he has to open his mouth, and then he is a force to be reckoned with. My impression; what's yours?
Below is excerpted from my earlier post this afternoon on Eat The Press:
Notable was the trademark Russert "gotcha" moment wherein he played the infamous clip of Cheney saying in August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." When asked if, knowing that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, if Cheney would still have gone into Iraq, he said "Yes" and went on:
"The world is better off because Saddam Hussein is in jail instead of in power in Baghdad. It was the right thing to do and if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."
Note that Cheney dated Saddam's WMD use at 1991.
Russert also called him on his other infamous comment, the old "insurgency in its last throes" comment, which Cheney admitted was — what's that word? — oh yeah, WRONG but with barely a breath spun it as a good thing, based on Iraqis embracing democracy and being willing to "step up and take on the responsibility for their own fate." Cheney also invoked the tough-guy rationale for staying in Iraq ( "My gosh, the United States hasn't got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden's right, al-Qaeda's right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission"), lauded the U.S. "detainee policy", claiming it was Constitutional by citing "the blessing of the lawyers" which, considering that the source of that is Gonzales, is an eyebrow-raise (when Tim asked him about "shady" methods, Cheney said stolidly "We have done everything we could think of to make the nation safe"). He also nimbly sidestepped Russert's question about military intervention in Iran, saying "I don't want to speculate on military options. It's not wise. And Rumsfeld would probably object." Russert also grilled him on Plamegate, where he admitted that "I have the authority, as Vice President under an executive order issued by the President, to classify and declassify information. And everything I have done is consistent with those authorities." He then refused to answer any more questions on the matter, though he began to look annoyed under Russert's repeated questioning. Cheney also had this chilling commentary on midterms: "I feel better about the election now than I did three months ago." SCARY.
Finally, Russert, who has finally seemed to grow a pair, asked Cheney about how he shot his friend in the face:
RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn't bring your shotgun in today?CHENEY: I wouldn't worry about it. You're not in season.
That may be the closest Cheney has ever come to exhibiting a sense of humor. Choice excerpts after the jump; full transcript here and full RussertWatch coming later - flag the issues of your choice in comments, today's transcript is packed with gems from one of the spinniest around.
Stating and restating the meme:
(Videotape, August 26, 2002):
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
(End of videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there is grave doubt, because they did not exist along the lines that you described, the president described, and others described. Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed, while he did not have stockpiles--clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong. That was the intelligence all of us saw, that was the intelligence all of us believed, it was--when, when George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, "George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?" the director of the CIA said, "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk." That was the intelligence that was provided to us at the time, and based upon which we made a choice.
MR. RUSSERT: So if the CIA said to you at that time, "Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way," you'd still invade Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Because, again, look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Also said that as soon as the sanctions are lifted, they expect Saddam to be back in business.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. Now the president has been asked, "What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?" and he said "nothing." Do you agree with that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I do. So it's not...
MR. RUSSERT: So it's case, case closed.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. I mean, we've never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...
MR. RUSSERT: Then why, in the lead-up to the war, was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al-Qaeda, or whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. There's a separate--apart from that's the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think--there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.So you've got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there's a connection. You've got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third...
MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven't seen the report; I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...
MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went in to 9/11, then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: The bottom line is, the rationale given the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda and we could have another September 11. And now we read that there is no evidence, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, of that relationship. You've said there's no involvement. The president says there's no involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, Tim, no involvement in what respect?
MR. RUSSERT: In September 11, OK. The CIA said, leading up to the war, that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was "low." It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al-Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, I guess--I don't--I'm not sure what part you don't understand here. In September--or in 1990, the State Department designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous terrorist, had sanctuary in, in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, poisons facility, ran by Ansar Islam, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000 on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies that.The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a relationship with al-Qaeda. And that was George Tenet's testimony, the director of the CIA, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We also have a--had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used weapons of mass destruction and we know, as well, that while he did not have any production under way at the time, that he's clearly retained the capability, and the expectation from the experts was as soon as the sanctions were lifted he'd be back in business again.Now this was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else. You talk about Iran, North Korea, they're problems, too, but they hadn't been through 12 years of sanctions and resolutions by the U.N. Security Council and ignored them with impunity.
And hat tip to DailyKos for this:
Russert: There was a story in the National Journal that said that Cheney authorized Libby to leak confidential information. Can you confirm or deny that?
Cheney: I have the authority, as Vice President under an executive order issued by the President, to classify and declassify information. And everything I have done is consistent with those authorities.
Russert: Could you declassify Valerie Plame's status as an operative?
Cheney: (Cheney raises his arms in a shrugging-like motion and gives a half smile) I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: Do you think the President should pardon Scooter Libby?
Cheney: I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: You wouldn't support a pardon?
Cheney: I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, Tim.
Russert: How about Richard Armitage, who has come forward and said he was the source for Robert Novak, some years ago?
Cheney: Does he need a pardon? (chuckles)
Russert: You...You...Are you upset or concerned that...
Cheney (interrupting): Tim, I've said I'm not going to discuss the subject. I understand, um, why you want to ask about it. But the fact of the matter is, it is a matter pending before the court, and, uh, since I could be a witness, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say more.
Send to a friend
Post a Comment
Print Post
Read all posts by Rachel Sklar