OUISVILLE, KY. -- U.S. Army officials are taking a close look at whether women in a Kentucky National Guard unit posed nude for pictures with their M-16s and other military equipment, authorities said.
A local newspaper reported that it had a disc containing 232 of the photos, which they did not publish, and do not plan to publish, E&P has learned.
Andrew Wolfson, who disclosed the existence of the disc in the Louisville Courier-Journal today, told E&P it came from an "anonymous" source.
"This is not the kind of activity condoned by the command leadership of the Kentucky National Guard," Lt. Col. Phil Miller, a spokesman for the Kentucky Guard, told the newspaper. The allegations were reported to the commander of the 410th Quartermaster unit a week or so before the company shipped out for Iraq on Aug. 26 from Camp Shelby, Miss.
The newspaper reported a compact disc contained 232 photographs of at least a half-dozen nude and seminude women in various poses with military rifles and covering their breasts with American flag decals. An e-mail said the women photographed were from the Kentucky Guard.
What the hell kind of idiot people do we have in the Guard? They need to be court-martialed and drummed out. Idiots!!
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Thursday, September 28, 2006
China fires lasers to disable US satellites!!
"The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier," said one senior former Pentagon official.
There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.
Well yeah...!! Clinton gave them all the secret stuff we had, what would you expect??
Click HERE for the FULL Story
There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.
Well yeah...!! Clinton gave them all the secret stuff we had, what would you expect??
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Shortwave going away
Perhaps it is fitting that a 50-second video clip of an ear-shattering explosion of 13 shortwave radio antenna towers on the Spanish Costa Brava is getting viewers on the Web site YouTube.
It took 32 pounds, or 14.5 kilograms, of dynamite to fell the massive antennas, which long relayed news from the United States to the former Soviet Union. But the most powerful force behind the demolition was the rapidly shifting landscape of radio, where listeners are migrating toward MP3 players, Internet radio and podcasting.
Click HERE for the FULL story
Oh great... as our reliance grows on the internet, we demolish the basic working avenues of communications. Does anyone worry about this? I do. I do a LOT. The internet is so fragile and so tenuous and so able to fall prey to loss of power, viruses, whims of local providers (what good is the internet if your local provider goes belly up) that it scares me half silly that we continue to put ALL our eggs in this one basket.
It took 32 pounds, or 14.5 kilograms, of dynamite to fell the massive antennas, which long relayed news from the United States to the former Soviet Union. But the most powerful force behind the demolition was the rapidly shifting landscape of radio, where listeners are migrating toward MP3 players, Internet radio and podcasting.
Click HERE for the FULL story
Oh great... as our reliance grows on the internet, we demolish the basic working avenues of communications. Does anyone worry about this? I do. I do a LOT. The internet is so fragile and so tenuous and so able to fall prey to loss of power, viruses, whims of local providers (what good is the internet if your local provider goes belly up) that it scares me half silly that we continue to put ALL our eggs in this one basket.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Not able to drop race for even a second eh?
Among many, many other things, Oprah talked about her humble beginnings in Mississippi, and particularly about how her mother's highest aspiration for her was that she might end up cleaning white people's houses, because "they give away nice clothes." And then Oprah pointed out that now that she's Oprah, she has "all these white people" working for her, and that in fact there's only one black person on the staff. Way to turn the tables, girl.
Click HERE to read the FULL Story
Click HERE to read the FULL Story
Monday, September 25, 2006
AMERICAN SCHIZOPHRENIA
The politicians are constantly blathering about our “image” in the world and how other nations are not viewing us favorably. Why is it that no one mentions the image of Iraq, or Iran, or the murderous Sudan? Why aren't the North Koreans concerned about their image…or the Chinese? “Americans are better than that,” they say. Is that true? Is America better than that? If so, why? What is it, in the eyes of the world that makes America better than an Iraq? Could it be that the rest of the world recognizes what we refuse to admit? In our striving to be tolerant, diverse, and secular, are we denying the very foundations that the rest of the world recognizes?
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Friday, September 22, 2006
Why you will soon wear robes and bow to Mecca
Western governments and journalism organizations continue to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace," virtually all terrorist acts worldwide – over 5,000 instances since 9-11 – have been committed by Muslims, against Jews, against Christians, against other non-Muslims, even against other types of Muslims.
Yet, there's an even bigger Islamic threat than violent jihad. Today, the West is being transformed by Islam. Especially in Britain and Europe, where Islamic immigration is already well advanced, analysts conclude it's simply a matter of time before some of these nations have Muslim majorities. Then comes Sharia law and the total transformation of these formerly Christian countries into repressive Islamic states.
Exaggeration? Consider that the Netherlands' justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, recently announced he would welcome Sharia law to his European nation – already rapidly filling up with Muslims – if the majority votes for it. Under Sharia, just as in Arab-Muslim nations currently under this strict Islamic legal system like Saudi Arabia, Europe may see amputations – as prescribed in the Quran – as punishment for certain crimes; women publicly flogged and sometimes hanged or stoned to death for adultery or other so-called "crimes against chastity"; and death sentences for leaving the Muslim religion, or even for preaching Christianity, as occurs in Pakistan under its notorious "blasphemy laws."
What about America? Though the percentage of Muslims in this huge nation is much lower than in Europe, the growth of radical Islam already has a powerful foothold in many parts of American society. Beyond the rapid proliferation of Saudi-funded mosques, Islamic centers and schools teaching hatred for America, consider the nation's prison system.
"Radical Muslim chaplains, trained in a foreign ideology, certified in foreign-financed schools, and acting in coordination to impose an extremist agenda have gained a monopoly over Islamic religious activities in American state, federal, and city prisons and jails," says author Stephen Schwartz. "Imagine each prison Islamic community as a little Saudi kingdom behind prison walls, without the amenities. They have effectively induced American authorities to establish a form of 'state Islam' or 'government-certified Islam' in correctional systems."
Despite all this, most politicians and journalists in the West – whether out of sympathy, or out of fear of having their throats cut – are afraid to criticize Islam publicly. Yet if radical Islam can succeed in throttling all criticism, from the pope on down, it will have succeeded in imposing de facto sharia law– which prohibits all criticism of Islam or its prophet – on the entire world.
Source: October issue of WND's monthly magazine, Whistleblower
Yet, there's an even bigger Islamic threat than violent jihad. Today, the West is being transformed by Islam. Especially in Britain and Europe, where Islamic immigration is already well advanced, analysts conclude it's simply a matter of time before some of these nations have Muslim majorities. Then comes Sharia law and the total transformation of these formerly Christian countries into repressive Islamic states.
Exaggeration? Consider that the Netherlands' justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, recently announced he would welcome Sharia law to his European nation – already rapidly filling up with Muslims – if the majority votes for it. Under Sharia, just as in Arab-Muslim nations currently under this strict Islamic legal system like Saudi Arabia, Europe may see amputations – as prescribed in the Quran – as punishment for certain crimes; women publicly flogged and sometimes hanged or stoned to death for adultery or other so-called "crimes against chastity"; and death sentences for leaving the Muslim religion, or even for preaching Christianity, as occurs in Pakistan under its notorious "blasphemy laws."
What about America? Though the percentage of Muslims in this huge nation is much lower than in Europe, the growth of radical Islam already has a powerful foothold in many parts of American society. Beyond the rapid proliferation of Saudi-funded mosques, Islamic centers and schools teaching hatred for America, consider the nation's prison system.
"Radical Muslim chaplains, trained in a foreign ideology, certified in foreign-financed schools, and acting in coordination to impose an extremist agenda have gained a monopoly over Islamic religious activities in American state, federal, and city prisons and jails," says author Stephen Schwartz. "Imagine each prison Islamic community as a little Saudi kingdom behind prison walls, without the amenities. They have effectively induced American authorities to establish a form of 'state Islam' or 'government-certified Islam' in correctional systems."
Despite all this, most politicians and journalists in the West – whether out of sympathy, or out of fear of having their throats cut – are afraid to criticize Islam publicly. Yet if radical Islam can succeed in throttling all criticism, from the pope on down, it will have succeeded in imposing de facto sharia law– which prohibits all criticism of Islam or its prophet – on the entire world.
Source: October issue of WND's monthly magazine, Whistleblower
More... from the wonderful religion of peace
'Green flag of Allah will fly over Vatican'
Sheik rejects pope's gestures to Muslims, calls for holy war against 'this little racist'
[Comments: and you still think Islam is a religion of peace? Go read the Koran for yourself... you'll be amazed. -G ]
Click HERE for the FULL story
Sheik rejects pope's gestures to Muslims, calls for holy war against 'this little racist'
[Comments: and you still think Islam is a religion of peace? Go read the Koran for yourself... you'll be amazed. -G ]
Click HERE for the FULL story
Harsh words inspire the unstable.
PEGGY NOONAN
Answer Chavez
The world is as hot as "the devil."
Friday, September 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
This is what I was thinking as I walked this week along the siren-filled streets of New York: The temperature of the world is very high.
We have a global warming problem, and maybe it's due to an increase in the output of heated words. And they too can, in the end, melt icecaps.
"The Pope must die." "The Holocaust is a lie." "I can still smell the sulfur."
The last of course from the democratically elected president of the republic of Venezuela, population 26 million, which helps keep America going economically by selling it, at significant profit, oil.
His remarks were startling. No one wants to dignify them with a response. But that's a mistake. Because the world heard them.
U.N. speeches are, by history and tradition, boring. You daydream to them. This is not all accident, not only the result of the fact that a nation's diplomats don't usually come from the more scintillating parts of its elites. (They rose to the U.N. in the first place because they didn't fatally offend anyone back home.) Their speeches are dull because they know divisions can be dodged or blunted by a heartening vagueness. And so their words are blankets, not bullets; meant to envelop, not pierce.
But here was Hugo Chavez Wednesday to the General Assembly:
The "pretensions" of "the American empire" threaten "the survival" of mankind. The world must "halt this threat." The American president talks "as if he owned the world" and leads a "world dictatorship" that must not be allowed to "be consolidated." Bush will spend "the rest of [his] days as a nightmare." The U.S. government is "imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal," a "hypocritical" empire that only pretends to mourn the deaths of innocents. But not only the Mideast will rise. "People of the South," "oppressed" by America, must "strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle."
That's not vague. It's a call to arms.
The administration quickly moved to dismiss it: More bilge from the buffoon, more opera bouffe. We won't comment or dignify.
The right doesn't want to take him seriously (we don't need more problems), and the left doesn't want to see him clearly (we gave birth to that?). But Chavez's speech achieved a great deal, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
He raised his own standing. He got the world to look at him. He emerged in the speech as heir to the dying Fidel Castro, who he was careful to note is still alive and kicking. Chavez doesn't want to be the current Fidel, the old man in soft fatigues, but the Fidel of 1960, who when he went to the U.N. pointedly camped in a hotel in Harlem, and electrified the masses. Chavez even followed his speech with the announcement he was giving heating oil to the needy of the Bronx. You know what they said in the Bronx? Thanks! It went over big on local TV.
He broke through the clutter. Everyone this weekend will be discussing what he said--exactly what he said, and how he said it.
He shook things up. His speech was, essentially if implicitly, a call to resistance, by any means, to the government of the United States.
He broadened his claimed base. Chavez made the argument that it is not America versus Saddam or America versus terrorists but the American Empire versus all the yearning people of the world. He claimed as his constituency everyone unhappy with the unipolar world.
He acknowledged a particular reality by putting distance between the current administration and the American people. This is not so much new as shrewd, and telling. It is an unacknowledged fact known to every diplomat in the world that the people of the world like Americans. Old Europe and new, Africa, people on the ground all over, have some acquaintance with the particular American character of openness and generosity. We turn our faith, and guilt at good fortune, into do-gooding. We send money, bring bandages and overtip. The world has met us. (This by the way is our biggest foreign-policy strength.) Those who attack America are forced to speak highly of Americans, and Chavez did, which allows him to reach potential new allies here. People don't mind being told they are very fine but their government is very wicked. He gave new cover to critics of America. Jacques Chirac to Condoleezza Rice the next time he throws a snare: "You think I'm bad? Chavez would kill you!"
America has seen this before, seen Krushchev bang his shoe on the table and say "We will bury you." We grew up watching our flag being burned on TV. So it's tempting to think this is part of a meaningless continuum.
But the temperature of the world is very high, and maybe we're not stuck in a continuum but barreling down a dark corridor. The problem with heated words now is that it's not the old world anymore. In the old world, incompetent governments dragged cannons through the mud to set up a ragged front. Now every nut and nation wants, has or is trying to develop nukes.
Harsh words inspire the unstable.
Coolants are needed. Here is an idea. Don't try to ignore Chavez, answer him. With the humility that comes with deep confidence, with facts, and with some humor, too.
There is an opportunity for the Democratic Party. Some Democrats responded with spirited indignation the day after Chavez spoke. It was rousing. But Chavez's charges were grave, and he claimed America's abuses could be tracked back a century. If the Democrats seek to speak for America, why not start with a serious and textured response, one that isn't a political blast-back but a high-minded putting forward of facts? This would take guts, and farsightedness. Rebutting a wild-eyed man who says you can find redemption reading Noam Chomsky is a little too much like rebutting a part of your base.
As for the administration, it is so in the habit of asserting, defending and repeating, it barely remembers how to persuade and appeal. It speaks starkly and carries a big stick. It feels so beleaguered on a daily basis, and so snakebit, that even its mildest players have taken refuge in gritting their teeth and tunneling on. They take comfort in this: They think Chavez helps them. See what we're up against? But that's not a response, it's a way not to respond. It doesn't help, because it doesn't even try to cool things down. Which is no good, because the temperature of the world is very high.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Answer Chavez
The world is as hot as "the devil."
Friday, September 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
This is what I was thinking as I walked this week along the siren-filled streets of New York: The temperature of the world is very high.
We have a global warming problem, and maybe it's due to an increase in the output of heated words. And they too can, in the end, melt icecaps.
"The Pope must die." "The Holocaust is a lie." "I can still smell the sulfur."
The last of course from the democratically elected president of the republic of Venezuela, population 26 million, which helps keep America going economically by selling it, at significant profit, oil.
His remarks were startling. No one wants to dignify them with a response. But that's a mistake. Because the world heard them.
U.N. speeches are, by history and tradition, boring. You daydream to them. This is not all accident, not only the result of the fact that a nation's diplomats don't usually come from the more scintillating parts of its elites. (They rose to the U.N. in the first place because they didn't fatally offend anyone back home.) Their speeches are dull because they know divisions can be dodged or blunted by a heartening vagueness. And so their words are blankets, not bullets; meant to envelop, not pierce.
But here was Hugo Chavez Wednesday to the General Assembly:
The "pretensions" of "the American empire" threaten "the survival" of mankind. The world must "halt this threat." The American president talks "as if he owned the world" and leads a "world dictatorship" that must not be allowed to "be consolidated." Bush will spend "the rest of [his] days as a nightmare." The U.S. government is "imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal," a "hypocritical" empire that only pretends to mourn the deaths of innocents. But not only the Mideast will rise. "People of the South," "oppressed" by America, must "strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle."
That's not vague. It's a call to arms.
The administration quickly moved to dismiss it: More bilge from the buffoon, more opera bouffe. We won't comment or dignify.
The right doesn't want to take him seriously (we don't need more problems), and the left doesn't want to see him clearly (we gave birth to that?). But Chavez's speech achieved a great deal, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
He raised his own standing. He got the world to look at him. He emerged in the speech as heir to the dying Fidel Castro, who he was careful to note is still alive and kicking. Chavez doesn't want to be the current Fidel, the old man in soft fatigues, but the Fidel of 1960, who when he went to the U.N. pointedly camped in a hotel in Harlem, and electrified the masses. Chavez even followed his speech with the announcement he was giving heating oil to the needy of the Bronx. You know what they said in the Bronx? Thanks! It went over big on local TV.
He broke through the clutter. Everyone this weekend will be discussing what he said--exactly what he said, and how he said it.
He shook things up. His speech was, essentially if implicitly, a call to resistance, by any means, to the government of the United States.
He broadened his claimed base. Chavez made the argument that it is not America versus Saddam or America versus terrorists but the American Empire versus all the yearning people of the world. He claimed as his constituency everyone unhappy with the unipolar world.
He acknowledged a particular reality by putting distance between the current administration and the American people. This is not so much new as shrewd, and telling. It is an unacknowledged fact known to every diplomat in the world that the people of the world like Americans. Old Europe and new, Africa, people on the ground all over, have some acquaintance with the particular American character of openness and generosity. We turn our faith, and guilt at good fortune, into do-gooding. We send money, bring bandages and overtip. The world has met us. (This by the way is our biggest foreign-policy strength.) Those who attack America are forced to speak highly of Americans, and Chavez did, which allows him to reach potential new allies here. People don't mind being told they are very fine but their government is very wicked. He gave new cover to critics of America. Jacques Chirac to Condoleezza Rice the next time he throws a snare: "You think I'm bad? Chavez would kill you!"
America has seen this before, seen Krushchev bang his shoe on the table and say "We will bury you." We grew up watching our flag being burned on TV. So it's tempting to think this is part of a meaningless continuum.
But the temperature of the world is very high, and maybe we're not stuck in a continuum but barreling down a dark corridor. The problem with heated words now is that it's not the old world anymore. In the old world, incompetent governments dragged cannons through the mud to set up a ragged front. Now every nut and nation wants, has or is trying to develop nukes.
Harsh words inspire the unstable.
Coolants are needed. Here is an idea. Don't try to ignore Chavez, answer him. With the humility that comes with deep confidence, with facts, and with some humor, too.
There is an opportunity for the Democratic Party. Some Democrats responded with spirited indignation the day after Chavez spoke. It was rousing. But Chavez's charges were grave, and he claimed America's abuses could be tracked back a century. If the Democrats seek to speak for America, why not start with a serious and textured response, one that isn't a political blast-back but a high-minded putting forward of facts? This would take guts, and farsightedness. Rebutting a wild-eyed man who says you can find redemption reading Noam Chomsky is a little too much like rebutting a part of your base.
As for the administration, it is so in the habit of asserting, defending and repeating, it barely remembers how to persuade and appeal. It speaks starkly and carries a big stick. It feels so beleaguered on a daily basis, and so snakebit, that even its mildest players have taken refuge in gritting their teeth and tunneling on. They take comfort in this: They think Chavez helps them. See what we're up against? But that's not a response, it's a way not to respond. It doesn't help, because it doesn't even try to cool things down. Which is no good, because the temperature of the world is very high.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Truth
From "Rage and Pride" -- by the late Oriana Fallaci
"In this world there is room for everybody, I say. In one’s own home, everyone is free to do what they please. If in some countries the women are so stupid to accept the chador, or the veil where they have to look through a thick net at eye level, worse for them. If they are so idiotic to accept not going to school, not going to the doctor, not letting themselves be photographed etcetera, well worse for them. If they are so foolish as to marry a prick that wants four wives, too bad for them. If their men are so silly as to not drink beer, wine, ditto. I am not going to be the one to stop them. Far from it! I have been educated in the concept of liberty, and my mother used to say: “the world is beautiful because it is varied”. But, if they demand to impose these things on me, in my house… and they do demand it. Osama Bin Laden affirms that the entire planet Earth must become Muslim, that we must convert to Islam, that either by convincing us or threatening us, he will convert us, and for that goal he massacres us and will continue to massacre us. This cannot please us. It has to give us a great desire to reverse roles and kill him. However, this will not resolve itself, it will not be exhausted with the death of Osama Bin Laden. This is because the Osama Bin Ladens number in the tens of thousands now and they are not confined to the Arabic countries. They are everywhere, and the most militant are in the West. In our cities, our streets, our universities, in the nerve centers of our technology. That technology that any obtuse can manage. The Crusade has been underway for a while. It works like a Swiss watch, sustained by a faith and a malice which compares only to the malice of Torquemada when he led the Inquisition. In fact it is impossible to deal with them. To reason with them, unthinkable. To treat them with indulgence or tolerance or hope, is suicide. Anyone who believes the contrary, is deluding himself"
"In this world there is room for everybody, I say. In one’s own home, everyone is free to do what they please. If in some countries the women are so stupid to accept the chador, or the veil where they have to look through a thick net at eye level, worse for them. If they are so idiotic to accept not going to school, not going to the doctor, not letting themselves be photographed etcetera, well worse for them. If they are so foolish as to marry a prick that wants four wives, too bad for them. If their men are so silly as to not drink beer, wine, ditto. I am not going to be the one to stop them. Far from it! I have been educated in the concept of liberty, and my mother used to say: “the world is beautiful because it is varied”. But, if they demand to impose these things on me, in my house… and they do demand it. Osama Bin Laden affirms that the entire planet Earth must become Muslim, that we must convert to Islam, that either by convincing us or threatening us, he will convert us, and for that goal he massacres us and will continue to massacre us. This cannot please us. It has to give us a great desire to reverse roles and kill him. However, this will not resolve itself, it will not be exhausted with the death of Osama Bin Laden. This is because the Osama Bin Ladens number in the tens of thousands now and they are not confined to the Arabic countries. They are everywhere, and the most militant are in the West. In our cities, our streets, our universities, in the nerve centers of our technology. That technology that any obtuse can manage. The Crusade has been underway for a while. It works like a Swiss watch, sustained by a faith and a malice which compares only to the malice of Torquemada when he led the Inquisition. In fact it is impossible to deal with them. To reason with them, unthinkable. To treat them with indulgence or tolerance or hope, is suicide. Anyone who believes the contrary, is deluding himself"
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
It it walks, talks, and looks like a duck...
CNSNews.com - As the Vatican continues trying to placate Muslims angered by Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks, a senior Catholic leader has said the violent response justified the concern the pope had been expressing in the first place.
Citing threats of violence against the pope in Somalia and Iraq, Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell said "the violent reactions ... showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."
Click HERE for FULL Story
Citing threats of violence against the pope in Somalia and Iraq, Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell said "the violent reactions ... showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."
Click HERE for FULL Story
ABC Slides Up to Islam - Calls Pope a Dog
In an ABC News story by its Rome correspondent Martin Seemungal, Pope Benedict XVI was compared to an attack dog -- the Rottweiler -- during Seemungal's extraordinarily biased coverage of the Muslim uprising over the Pontiff's recent comments. At first reading, I had to remind myself I wasn't on the Al-Jazeera News website.
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Click HERE for the FULL Story
Friday, September 08, 2006
9/11 Film is Correct Despite Threats from Democrats
Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct'
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.
"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.
As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson and was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.
Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.
"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."
Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.
"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.
As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson and was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.
Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.
"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."
Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)