SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)8/24/2006 5:00:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363460
 
If Rove were ever running a campaign against McCain he would use aggressive Ads with images of McCain embrassing Bush and many of his policies...He would clearly communicate that McCain has totally rubber-stamped Bush's reckless adventure over in Iraq...He would also have an "independent group" swiftboat McCain...Rove has NEVER cared about playing by any rules...His only goal is to win elections and he doesn't care how he has to do it.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)8/29/2006 6:41:19 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363460
 
Lieberman and the GOP: The Last Straw?

americanthinker.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/1/2006 8:06:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 363460
 
Republicans tense as voter disillusionment sets in

usatoday.com

Updated 8/31/2006 11:39 PM ET

By Jill Lawrence and Susan Page, USA TODAY

EMMAUS, Pa. — The buzzing of 150 friends and neighbors quieted as Kathleen Miller told them about her older son, a Marine who was injured in Iraq, and her younger son, who is in the Army and has orders to go there in October.

"I am afraid," Miller said. "That's why we need Bob Casey, so he can join a Democratic Congress and help find a solution to this war."

Miller, a Democratic activist, delivered her stark message in a wood-and-brick barn decked with balloons, sparkly white lights and Casey himself. The state treasurer, son of the late governor Bob Casey, had a double-digit lead over two-term Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last week.

Iraq is one of several tides running against GOP candidates, driving away independent voters and some party faithful. Except for Missouri, independent voters in five Senate races polled by USA TODAY were swinging toward the Democrat. Party loyalty was stronger among Democrats than Republicans in every state but Ohio.

President Bush's anemic job approval, underscored this week by the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, is a drag on Republicans almost everywhere. His rating hasn't risen above 42% in six months. Other problems facing Republicans:

•Corruption and ethics. The climate is particularly troubled for Ohio Republicans. Gov. Bob Taft last year pleaded no contest to charges that he violated state ethics laws. Rep. Bob Ney, under investigation for his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, said he would not seek re-election. Even Sen. Mike DeWine, not entangled in either scandal, says the issue hurts him.

In Montana, Sen. Conrad Burns was the top recipient of campaign donations from Abramoff, his clients and political allies. "Ethics is the issue" in the race, says political scientist James Lopach of the University of Montana. He says Burns is helped by his "folksy, agricultural, working-person" persona, but says Democrat Jon Tester, a farmer, is a strong challenger: "He also symbolizes what a lot of Montanans think of themselves — close to the land, hard-working, straightforward."

•Social issues. Some conservatives press views that are unpopular with a majority of Americans. Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, is a national spokesman on cultural issues and helped lead last year's drive for congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. He called court decisions allowing removal of the Florida woman's feeding tube "unconscionable."

In Missouri, voters will decide this fall whether to amend their constitution to protect embryonic stem cell research and ban human cloning. The initiative has thrust stem cell research, which has broad support in polls, into the forefront of the Senate race.

Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill has championed the cause. GOP Sen. Jim Talent opposes the initiative but says voters should reach their own decisions about a "very difficult moral issue."

Stem cell research divides business-oriented Republicans from the party's social conservatives, says political scientist Michael Minta of Washington University in St. Louis: "It's a dilemma" for the GOP.

•Economic issues. Stagnant wages, high gas prices and rising health care costs are top concerns in Pennsylvania and Ohio. "For working people ... all things are going pretty bad right now," says Jim Sherwood, 42, a painter and union official from Cleveland.

Sherwood and three other members of the Painters' Union were at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Cleveland to hear Senate candidate Sherrod Brown and others stump for a ballot initiative to increase the state minimum wage from $4.25 to $6.85 an hour.

"For 10 years, no minimum wage increase" at the federal level while members of Congress saw their pay rise six times, Brown, a seven-term House member, told the crowd. "That's not the kind of family values most of us believe in." He said later that Ohio voters feel their government "has betrayed them."

The next day, DeWine was just four blocks away to tout the jobs he's brought to Ohio. The two-term senator put on a hard hat and a safety vest to inspect work on the widening of Euclid Avenue. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, DeWine says he landed $47 million for the project.

Later, sipping peppermint tea in a nearby coffee shop, DeWine acknowledged that the political climate was tough for Republicans. "We all swim in the same ocean," he said, and there are "choppy waters" this year.

Voters raised economic worries repeatedly at a Casey rally last week in Jim Thorpe, Pa. "The gap is ever-widening" between the rich and everyone else, said Ronald Rabenold, a fifth-grade teacher and union official from Lehighton.

Santorum says Casey's economic plan is higher taxes and bigger government. "He is sort of a European socialist," he said. Casey, who opposes Bush's tax cuts, laughed and called the tag "preposterous."

In the end, some experts say, national security could be the decisive issue — but unlike in most elections, it's unclear which party will benefit. "The Republicans are relying on this image of them being strong on defense and the war on terror, and their ability to portray Democrats as weak," says Bob Benenson, editor of the non-partisan CQPolitics.com. He adds: "This could be a totally different year."

The reason is Iraq. In recent USA TODAY/Gallup polls, majorities said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops and that they should come home either immediately or within a year.

Republican Peter Vaughan, an energy consultant in Pittsburgh, calls the U.S. presence in Iraq "a vexing question" and worries it will hurt Santorum. "My biggest fear is that we're not going to marshal enough support to win," he says.

Standing in Miller's barn, Casey says Santorum hasn't asked Bush the hard questions senators need to ask in a time of war. Santorum said in an interview that the tactics used to fight the war have not been "even close to perfect." But he added, "I'm perfectly happy to run this race on national security issues."

Brian Souerwine of Macungie embodies the tough electoral realities facing Santorum and his party. The retired teacher switched his registration from Republican to Democrat six months ago and plans to vote for Casey.

He doesn't like what's going on with Iraq, the economy or federal education policy. "There are a whole lot of disillusioned people in our country," Souerwine says.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/5/2006 7:03:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
"...Bush rushed 200K troops to sit on the border with Saddam demanding that Saddam do the impossible: show WMDs that he did not have. Republicans truly are a freakshow."...

Message 22783415



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/6/2006 9:54:00 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
America's backward leap
____________________________________________________________

A wealthy family that got rich on oil co-opts religious extremists to maintain its stranglehold on power. Western readers of that statement would immediately assume that I am referring to the Saudi royal family, while at least some non-Western readers would surmise that my reference is to the Bush White House.

For neutral observers, the comparison is quite compelling. Much as the Saudi royal family signed away its role in society to Wahhabi leaders in return for political patronage, US Republicans have coasted to electoral victory on a combination of support for the rich that is balanced with concern for society's morals, as defined by the religious right. In other words, it is the politics of fear that is used to put harried middle-class voters into submission. This is very similar to the politics of fear that Muslim countries use to keep their populations in line, often engaging in lectures on threats to the religion.

There are many other similarities. Muslim governments often change education syllabi to accommodate the demands of religious authorities. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is virtually unknown in Muslim schools, as Islamic scholars object to the idea of human beings descending from monkeys. The religious right in the United States has adopted similar tactics of late, pushing notions such as "intelligent design" back on to campuses. The generation of Americans growing up in such schools could well approach the world with the same narrowness of mind and rigidity of purpose that Islamic countries produce.

Middle Eastern dictators need Israel as an available excuse so that they can themselves stay in power. Being portrayed as an opponent of Israel in Arab media carries with it a decided advantage, as any political opponent would immediately be labeled as pro-Israeli. In much the same way, US President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney probably need the Middle East to remain the sorry mess that it is for their own selfish reasons. This week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indulged in name-calling of Americans opposed to the Iraq war, likening them to Nazi-era sympathizers. In doing this, he has pulled a page straight out of the "Arab Despot Book of Governance"...

More at:

atimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/7/2006 1:16:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363460
 
Kerry should speak out about how Disney (ABC) is trying to feed America a biased view of what happened on 9/11...

Message 22789721



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/8/2006 12:20:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
Media reports fail to probe 9-11 Commission chairman Kean's role with ABC's factually flawed Path to 9/11 miniseries...

mediamatters.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/8/2006 12:44:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
UPDATE 1-Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie

yahoo.reuters.com

Thu Sep 7, 2006 7:45 PM ET

(Adds quotes, details)

By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. <DIS.N, urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

Chronicling events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.

The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the Nov. 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.

Democrats have chided Republicans for failing to implement security recommendations by the 9/11 commission, and Republicans have portrayed Democrats as soft on terrorism.

In recent days, former members of the Clinton administration also lodged complaints with Iger, urging ABC and Disney to fix or eliminate what they called errors and fabrications.

ABC issued a statement saying the production, "The Path to 9/11," was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus "premature and irresponsible."

'DRAMATIC LICENSE'

Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that "there is dramatic license taken" in the docudrama to "render the program effective and accessible for viewers." Speaking to Reuters by telephone from London, he added, "We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort."

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats -- depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security adviser Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission -- was a "conflation of events."

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

The Sept. 11 attacks occurred about eight months after Clinton turned over the presidency in January 2001 to Republican George W. Bush.

For several years, Democrats have complained the Bush administration failed to capture or kill bin Laden when he reportedly was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region in late 2001. They also argue the war in Iraq later took away resources for tracking down bin Laden.

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced.

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one," he said. (Additional reporting by Steve Gorman and Ellen Wulfhorst)



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/8/2006 3:59:53 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
How to win a schoolyard fight - a guide for '06 Democrats.

huffingtonpost.com

By Zack Exley

09.07.2006

Too many Democrats at all levels are making a critical error in the final stretch of the fight for Congress. This is the same mistake that lost the Kerry campaign and that has plagued Democrats for more than a decade. It's not the fault of any one committee or consultant -- this is a cultural problem that afflicts almost every Democratic and progressive entity.

The problem is that we don't fight. Three psychological barriers have overtaken our subculture and left us defenseless against the schoolyard bully: 1) Fear of the ball, 2) self-doubt, and 3) meanness.

Fear of the ball

Polls show a majority of Americans are unhappy about the war and have lost faith in the Republicans on national security issues. Democrats should smell blood. Instead, too many are taking the "we'll let them hang themselves" approach, hoping it will be enough to play up their own strength (the economy) while bad news from Iraq automatically erodes Republicans' traditional advantage (national security).

That is the wrong reaction. That is not how to fight. You're afraid to get into the action and mix it up, afraid of the ball -- because what if it hits you in the face, WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG!? For sure, something will go wrong. But if you've got a competitive race, and your opponent knows it's a fight, then you're guaranteed to lose if you don't join the action.

For the next two months you MUST attack your Republican opponent on both their weakness (the economy) and their strength (national security). Momentum is on our side -- and that means our blows do more damage than they normally do. That means you should use more force, not less.

Attack them on their strength: "YOU BOTCHED THE WAR ON TERROR."
Attack them on their weakness: "AND NOW YOUR RUINING THE ECONOMY TOO."

They will counterattack, but you can handle that! (Catch the ball, run with it!)

The Kerry campaign was a spectacular example of Republicans loving the ball and Democrats fearing it. John Kerry's big strength was that he was a decorated veteran. We built the whole convention around it. So what did the Republicans do? Attack his war record. They attacked with maximum force. (Most of you reading this never even saw the insane ads they were running in Ohio -- they were totally overwhelming and shameless.) But here's the really important lesson: Once they weakened that strength, did they sit back and wait for Election Day? No, they continued to attack with maximum force until what was a weakened strength became a real liability with a large chunk of swing voters.

There is risk in attacking an opponent's strength. What if he uses that very same strength to hit back? But there is more risk in relinquishing control of the ball to your opponent. He's going to attack you from his strength no matter what! That's why you must: attack first, on your own terms, in surprise, and with maximum force. Don't "test the waters" to see how an attack will play -- that is always a bad idea. You (or that consultant you're paying) have to be strategically gifted because the wrong attack will certainly backfire. But the correct attack, executed timidly in dribs and drabs, is also guaranteed to fail and can never be resurrected once begun.

This fear of the ball prevented nearly the entire Democratic/Progressive world from attacking Bush early in 2004 on things like body armor and other troop equipment shortages, port and airline security, and major blunders in the war against Al Qaeda. Democrats were afraid the public simply wouldn't buy a national security attack that came from them, and that Bush would turn the tables on them if they chose national security as a battleground.

Of course, the battleground wasn't up to us. "John Kerry voted against body armor for our troops," was the subject of the very first Bush ads in April 2004. The claim couldn't have been more preposterous -- but it was just crazy enough to ring true for many voters. The Bush campaign and their friends would spend the next nine months repeating the claim, and many more absurd ones.

Self-doubt

That example brings us to the second barrier: self-doubt. A big reason the Kerry campaign and other progressive campaigning organizations failed to attack (or counterattack) on the body armor and related issues was that, in some dark place inside our hearts, we kind of felt like the Republicans had a point.

After all, Kerry HAD voted against the Iraq war spending bill...

Rubbish! RUBBISH!! At a time when the troops were fully funded for months to come, Kerry stood up to an insane spending bill that would have bankrupted America for the sake of Halliburton profit and which included no special provisions for equipping the troops before deployment. None! (There's your counter attack).

What is it about Democrats that makes them want to believe the worst about themselves and the candidates they're working for? Where does this self-doubt come from? Ann Coulter? Bill O'Rielly? No, but they sure know how to prey upon it, don't they?

Self-doubt plays out in the current cycle in the following way: Just about every Democrat running for office fell for the Bush-Cheney story about Saddam Hussein and WMD. And they know that their party wasn't doing any better protecting against the gathering threat of terrorism when it was in power either. Their conscience recoils at the thought of a full-bore attack on national security because...it's not like they have been vastly different from the Republicans where it's really mattered.

Stop doubting yourselves! This is what Democracy is all about. The Republicans who have been in power since 9-11 brought home the reality of terrorism. And what have they done? Made their friends at Halliburton richer, and made America less safe. What would you have done? You would have done 100 times better! You're not sure about that? -- just trust us, get into office, and do 100 times better when you're there. How about that?

The fifth anniversary of 9-11 is not for the Republicans to own. This is the ball coming into your court. Use this anniversary (no, not on THE DAY OF) to highlight the Republicans' utter failure to make us safer.

Want to overcome self-doubt? Dick Cheney is a great one to study. He stands up there, righteous and doubtless in front of the nation, after he just gave $20 billion of our money to his friends at Halliburton to piss away. He made up stories about Saddam having chemical weapons ready to go in 45 minutes -- and nukes that would be ready in a matter of months. But look at him. Not one hint of shame or regret. And you: You're actually trying to do good by your country -- so act like it!

Finally, Meanness

Again, study Dick Cheney. Have you ever seen him be mean? (Don't count the times he was off mic or in private! The voters don't.) He's caused immeasurable harm, but we've never seen this guy show one flicker of a dishonorable demeanor in public.

Democrats, too often, are like the schoolyard brain, who, after years of being tortured, finally decides to stand up for himself. Usually that is a very ugly matter -- sometimes so ugly that even the bully can walk from the scene looking like the victim (even though he didn't even really get hurt).

Like the attack on Cheney's lesbian daughter in the debates, which I'm sure cost us tens of thousands of votes. That was the classic tortured nerd freakout move: Maybe the bully has been beating on this kid for the whole year. Maybe he's sent him home black and blue every friday. Maybe he's totally humiliated him in front of every girl in the school. And then one day the nerd -- using his brain -- jumps out and trips the bully when he's running full speed on the pavement. Blood everywhere. Until he finally goes off to Carnegie Mellon eight years later, this kid is going to be treated like an axe murderer by his peers. And the bully will still keep beating him (now he deserves it!).

And then there was the moment when Kerry's consultants finally let him hit back on Medalgate, and told him, thinking it was the most aggressive thing to do, to hit on Bush and Cheney's war records (or lack thereof). The problem was that neither Bush nor Cheney had ever actually launched an attack on Kerry's record. They always went out of their way to say that Kerry "served honorably" before then agreeing that the questions being raised by their insane surrogates were indeed, "very troubling." The mean work was done by well-funded garbage men in 527s.

Going on the offensive in the most extreme way doesn't mean losing your head and becoming a monster. You have to attack, but you have to attack smart, and with honor. Maintain the moral high ground at all times!

There you have it. I hope that helps. You've got a tough job in front of you, and I don't envy any of you. But just think of the reward if you can get yourself out of this rut and learn to fight. The reward is the chance to actually start fixing the mess these Republicans have made, and to give us humble citizens a chance to make a better America.

OK, come to think of it, I do envy you.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/8/2006 11:43:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 363460
 
Something else for John Kerry to speak out about...the fact that the GOP has been stonewalling the release of this report is a BIG DEAL...if it had come out BEFORE the 2004 election then the voters would have been better educated and voted for a different leader...fyi...

Panel Set to Release Just Part of Report On Run-Up to War

Full Disclosure May Come Post-Election

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006
washingtonpost.com

A long-awaited Senate analysis comparing the Bush administration's public statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private remains mired in partisan recrimination and will not be released before the November elections, key senators said yesterday.

Instead, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will vote today to declassify two less controversial chapters of the panel's report, on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, for release as early as Friday. One chapter has concluded that Iraqi exiles in the Iraqi National Congress, who were subsidized by the U.S. government, tried to influence the views of intelligence officers analyzing Hussein's efforts to create weapons of mass destruction.

"It is clear to me, at least, that the INC information provided to the Department of Defense was misleading, that the government spent unnecessary amounts of money supporting that group, and all of that helped create bogus reasons to go to war," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee.

Under pressure from Democrats, Republicans on the committee agreed in February 2004 to write a report on the use of prewar intelligence, but the effort has languished amid partisan feuding. Last year, angry Democrats briefly shut down the Senate to protest the pace of the investigation.

After nearly three years, the heart of the report remains incomplete. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Democrats produced 511 administration statements to be analyzed, a virtually impossible task. At this point, the section is 800 pages long, accompanied by 40,000 documents, and is nowhere near ready for release, he said.

But with midterm elections two months away, two of five chapters are about to be released. The first examines what, if any, information provided by Iraqi exiles was used in official intelligence estimates. The second compares prewar estimates of Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs with the findings of U.S. weapons hunters, who wrapped up their work empty-handed in December 2004.

Even that limited release may pack a wallop.

"This is a very critical part of our report," Feinstein said. "I am hopeful that it can be adequately declassified so that individuals can see that. If it is, the full import of the INC will be known."

Senate aides said it took two Republican committee members, Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), to force Roberts to act. Republicans on the committee readily conceded that Democrats would be able to pick through the chapters -- especially the INC portion -- to resurrect charges that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. And Democrats appeared ready to do just that.

"The principle that holds up this country is accountability, and we have not had any," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the committee's ranking Democrat. "What happened with the INC was remarkable."

But Republicans and Democrats differ sharply on the significance of controversial figures in the INC, such as Ahmed Chalabi. Democrats will say Chalabi and other exiles fueled the drive to war in 2002 by fundamentally distorting the conclusions of several intelligence reports, including a critical, classified estimate of Hussein's capabilities for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Republicans have concluded that the exiles had little influence.

"The big question is: Did the INC have any direct input into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate so as to affect in some way what was in that estimate?" Roberts said. "In my view, the conclusion is there is very little, if any, evidence that took place."

Roberts was emphatic yesterday that the chapter on Iraqi exiles "is a rather old story." The INC's efforts to influence U.S. policy in Iraq date to the early years of the Clinton administration and affected not just the White House but also Congress, he said.

"The allegation that the Bush administration was the first to discover and utilize the INC was simply not true," Roberts said. "It went way back."

Chalabi and the INC had strong supporters in the Bush administration, he conceded, but their biases and motives were widely understood. Ultimately, Chalabi had little to no influence on the critical administration document that convinced many policymakers that Saddam Hussein's weapons program presented a clear threat, Roberts said.

"The whole thing has been a colossal waste of time," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), another committee member.

Democratic aides disagreed with Roberts's characterization of the conclusions. Chalabi and senior members of the INC wanted the United States to depose Hussein in hopes that they could seize control of a new Iraqi government, and their efforts to influence intelligence did shape the critical National Intelligence Estimate, the aides said.

Roberts kept the investigation narrowly targeted to the exiles' influence on the intelligence process, beating back Democratic efforts to examine INC contacts with policymakers, the aides said. So the report is silent on Chalabi's efforts to sway Congress and individuals in the Bush administration.

Still, the report should make waves, they said. Democrats are already using Chalabi in their attacks on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, painting the secretary as a gullible dupe to an ambitious con man.

"The U.S. government spent a lot of money on the INC," Feinstein said. "I think it is a very important report."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (77440)9/10/2006 9:27:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363460
 
Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception

By Max Blumenthal
Friday 08 September 2006
truthout.org

Less than 72 hours before ABC's "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air, the network is suddenly under siege. On Tuesday, ABC was forced to concede that "The Path to 9/11" is "a dramatization, not a documentary." The film deceptively invents scenes to depict former President Bill Clinton's handling of the Al Qaeda threat.

Now, ABC claims to be is editing those false sequences to satisfy critics so the show can go on - even if it still remains a gross distortion of history. And as it does so, ABC advances the illusion that the deceptive nature of "The Path to 9/11" is an honest mistake committed by a hardworking but admittedly fumbling team of well-intentioned Hollywood professionals who wanted nothing less than to entertain America. But this is another Big Lie.

In fact, "The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's "global training network" in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled "Untitled History Project." "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series "under a shroud of secrecy" about the 9/11 attacks. "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project,'" the Post noted.

Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too "politically incorrect" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo - both friends of Nowrasteh - announced they were "partnering" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as "A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center."

Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group's headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a "think tank" bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)

With the LFF now under Horowitz's control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh's "Untitled" project, which finally was revealed in late summer as "The Path to 9/11." Horowitz's PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film's assault on Clinton's record on fighting terror. "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests," Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov. "There simply was no response. Nothing."

A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film's partisan nature. "'The Path to 9/11' is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible," Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty's article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.

Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC's mini-series. "Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries," Murty wrote, "so that 'The Path to 9/11' gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!"

Murty's efforts were supported by Appuzo, who handles LFF's heavily-trafficked blog, Libertas. Appuzo was instrumental in marketing The Path to 9/11 to conservatives, writing in a blog post on September 2, "Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton Administration's culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center ... Bravo to Cyrus Nowrasteh and David Cunningham for creating this gritty, stylish and gripping piece of entertainment."

When a group of leading Senate Democrats sent a letter to ABC CEO Robert Iger urging him to cancel The Path to 9/11 because of its glaring factual errors and distortions, Apuzzo launched a retaliatory campaign to paint the Democrats as foes of free speech. "Here at LIBERTAS we urge the public to make noise over this, and to demand that Democrats back down," he wrote on September 7th. "What is at stake is nothing short of the 1st Amendment."

At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out Nowrasteh as the victim. "The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11," Horowitz declared.

Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN's Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to "the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years."

While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It's almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.

-------