<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About That Docudrama</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:29:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: politicalpartypoop.com - Politics and other stuff in life that stinks &#187; Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-91098</link>
		<dc:creator>politicalpartypoop.com - Politics and other stuff in life that stinks &#187; Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-91098</guid>
		<description>[...] You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8216;Path To 9/11&#8242; Roundup</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-91031</link>
		<dc:creator>Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8216;Path To 9/11&#8242; Roundup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-91031</guid>
		<description>[...] The Commissar treacherously breaks ranks: I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for ‘The Path to 9/11.’ I’ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Commissar treacherously breaks ranks: I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for ‘The Path to 9/11.’ I’ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-91025</link>
		<dc:creator>‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-91025</guid>
		<description>[...] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for &#8216;The Path to 9/11.&#8217; I&#8217;ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for &#8216;The Path to 9/11.&#8217; I&#8217;ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-91020</link>
		<dc:creator>‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-91020</guid>
		<description>[...] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leaning Straight Up</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90926</link>
		<dc:creator>Leaning Straight Up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90926</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;9/11- A time for all things: A time to remember, to weep, to blame, to threaten&#8230;&lt;/strong&gt;

The 5 year anniversary is just around the corner, and it brings with it a flurry of conflicting emotions.
What should be a solemn day of rememberance, a time for unity and resolve and a time to reflect has become a time to bloviate, to threaten, to bla...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>9/11- A time for all things: A time to remember, to weep, to blame, to threaten&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>The 5 year anniversary is just around the corner, and it brings with it a flurry of conflicting emotions.<br />
What should be a solemn day of rememberance, a time for unity and resolve and a time to reflect has become a time to bloviate, to threaten, to bla&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hot Air &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC&#8217;s broadcast license over &#8220;Path to 9/11&#8243;</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90761</link>
		<dc:creator>Hot Air &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC&#8217;s broadcast license over &#8220;Path to 9/11&#8243;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90761</guid>
		<description>[...] You can&#8217;t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and &#8220;composite&#8221; scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin&#8217; nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid &#8212; who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to &#8212; wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can&#8217;t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and &#8220;composite&#8221; scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin&#8217; nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid &#8212; who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to &#8212; wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hot Air &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Report: ABC agrees to edit &#8220;Path to 9/11&#8243; after phone call from Clinton</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90691</link>
		<dc:creator>Hot Air &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Report: ABC agrees to edit &#8220;Path to 9/11&#8243; after phone call from Clinton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90691</guid>
		<description>[...] Tom Kean, who was one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission and a consultant on the film, has admitted that the scene was fictionalized as a composite of the many, many counterterrorism failures that happened on Billy Jeff&#8217;s watch. Mac Ranger leafs through his copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and plucks these two killer paragraphs: The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Tom Kean, who was one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission and a consultant on the film, has admitted that the scene was fictionalized as a composite of the many, many counterterrorism failures that happened on Billy Jeff&#8217;s watch. Mac Ranger leafs through his copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and plucks these two killer paragraphs: The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90621</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90621</guid>
		<description>Matt, I have no doubt that what you just described occurred; however, that&#039;s not what the scene portrays, by all accounts...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, I have no doubt that what you just described occurred; however, that&#8217;s not what the scene portrays, by all accounts&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90600</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90600</guid>
		<description>The CIA officer who was heading up the Bin Laden capture plan says that it is accurate. He isn’t sure whether it was Richard Clarke, who opposed the plan or Sandy Berger who called it off, but he is clear that it was the NSA.

“…Clarke was bad-mouthing it… the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level…the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication… was that the NSC canceled the operation…” 

“In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that “it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.” I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.” 

The only question is whether it was Clarke, Berger, or Clinton who cancelled the plan, not whether it existed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The CIA officer who was heading up the Bin Laden capture plan says that it is accurate. He isn’t sure whether it was Richard Clarke, who opposed the plan or Sandy Berger who called it off, but he is clear that it was the NSA.</p>
<p>“…Clarke was bad-mouthing it… the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level…the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication… was that the NSC canceled the operation…” </p>
<p>“In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that “it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.” I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.” </p>
<p>The only question is whether it was Clarke, Berger, or Clinton who cancelled the plan, not whether it existed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/comment-page-1/#comment-90590</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/09/05/about-that-docudrama/#comment-90590</guid>
		<description>Owen, cruise missiles are very accurate indeed, and they would have the benefit of not charging into a heavily armed group of radical Islamists eager to die with CIA operatives not so eager to do so.  I can totally understand calling in a cruise missile or two...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Owen, cruise missiles are very accurate indeed, and they would have the benefit of not charging into a heavily armed group of radical Islamists eager to die with CIA operatives not so eager to do so.  I can totally understand calling in a cruise missile or two&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
