Clinton: "That Depends on How You Define ‘Could’ "

7 09 2006

Filed under: Clinton, 9/11, Liberalism, Politics

Updated: Kos Kids panicking and the DNC stoops to new low – scroll for link.

This is the whining that is coming from Bill Clinton and his camp as they are whining about sharing some of the blame for 9/11 in a “docu-drama” being released by ABC.

[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…

Or could it be that it’s, temporarily probably, turning its back on liberals and producing something that is actually fair and balanced.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…

But, Mr. Liberal letter-writer, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a democratically-elected republic. Otherwise it would always be mob-rule and that is not how we live.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…


Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Yes, deeply damaged by the truth. Or, maybe deeply damaged by voting for less democrats?

Now sure, bloggers have conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. And its not time-accurate. That’s why it’s called a docu-drama, not a documentary. They’ve dramatized it a bit.

And certainly Bush has taken some of the responsibility for not responding better to threats. But has Clinton taken any responsibility? Nope.

A Democrat strategist on Hannity and Colmes tonite was debating Sean Hannity about Clinton’s statement regarding bin Laden:

“I couldn’t take him [Osama bin Laden] for legal reasons, so I tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato.”

Sean’s question was this: “How can he offer — “I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato” — how can he offer bin Laden to them if he doesn’t have him?”

But he never got a clear answer from the liberal side. All he got was excuses made for Clinton and his administration and blame for Bush.

Liberals argure that this statement by Clinton was taken out of context by conservative news sources, but I just don’t see it. This is pretty cut and dry and it’s certainly clear whom Clinton was referring to in the statement.

Fact is, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and others fumbled on the goal line. Period. And left the Bush administration to play defense.

But all guilt aside. The dem’s certainly have the right to protest ABC and request that they edit or cancel the program. What they cannot do is threaten ABC with their broadcasting license. This obviously violates free speech.

Captain Ed makes a good point:

Many people have pointed out that conservatives protested the factual deficiencies in “The Reagans” three years ago and wonder why they suddenly consider criticism invalid. The Democrats also appear to have completely changed their position as well. This is what they said about conservative criticism of CBS three years ago, and without a Republican threat against their broadcast license:

“No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.

“But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to isapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs.”

It’s certainly easy to imagine it now — the Democrats have delivered it. Welcome to the Enforced Perspective Party. It’s a staggeringly dumb political mistake, and if it’s not withdrawn quickly, will do real damage to the Democrats for years.

Bloggers are all over this and are not letting liberals get off easy.
Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin 1, Hot Air, Wizbang, Wizbang Bomb Squad, Texas Rainmaker, Woman Honor Thyself

Updated: Kos ( is panicking, and you all should go look at the DNC’s web page. With the fifth anniversary of 9-11 on the horizon, what are they all about? Reflection? National unity? Defense? No, no, and no. They want censorship.




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: