GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

“Inside 9/11″ – VCR/TiVO Alert!

by

I have arrived in Dallas for a week-long meeting. While I have some spare time (chuckling) on Sunday, I’m trying desperately to catch up with my reading (emails, favorite blogs, etc.)

So I just came across this documentary airing TONIGHT and TOMORROW nights on the National Geographic Channel. And I just spent a painful 20 minutes on the phone helping my Mom (who is dog-sitting) work through recording it on TiVO. Thanks, Mom!

Inside 9/11 – “War on America” – Sunday Episode (9pm Eastern/Pacific time)

Inside 9/11: “War on America” takes viewers into the secret world of al Qaeda and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism dating back to the Soviet-Afghan War.

Inside 9/11 – “Zero Hour” – Monday Episode (9pm Eastern/Pacific time)

Inside 9/11: “Zero Hour” takes viewers inside the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and deconstructs the events on that fateful day.

Here’s a review from Hal Boedeker at the Orlando Sentinel.

Excerpts from the review:

A startling wake-up call, Inside 9-11 concludes with a string of chilling analyses about the war on terror.

“Even if [Osama] bin Laden is killed or captured, there is sufficient momentum for the jihad campaign against the West to continue,” says Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside al-Qaeda. “He has galvanized a movement that will certainly outlast him.”

The narration concludes that al-Qaeda has grown from a terror network to a worldwide movement and cites as evidence the bombings since 9-11 in Bali, Spain, London and Egypt.

If that doesn’t shake viewers, the final image should. A bin Laden comment from November 2001 fills the screen: “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Comments

  1. Did you happen to catch “Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown” on CNN? Here’s a synopsis – David Ensor examines intelligence failures in assessing Saddam Hussein’s weaponry prior to the invasion of Iraq. I was most distressed to see how the White House used Colin Powell.

  4. GCB: I saw “Dead Wrong” last night on CNN. I don’t know what the Gay Republicans are so worried about — it didn’t mention their role in the Iraq Folly at all.

    Seriously, Dan: exactly what did you find dishonest about the CNN special? Seemed to be pretty straightforward reporting. Of course, when you put all the facts together, it’s not a pretty picture for your “team”. But, you ought to get used to it; you’re going to see more and more reassessments of the Administration’s run-up to the war.

  5. By its’ own admission in a letter of apology issued in 2003, CNN had been accomodating Saddam’s propaganda since 1994. Obviously CNN will attack this Republican White House.

  6. Reader, I don’t watch CNN for the same reason you (or I for that matter) don’t trust Gary Bauer for information on the gay community. And I’m already used to the MSM painting such “not pretty” pictures of the Administration’s policies. In most cases, they’re deceptive, dishonest or both.

  7. If they were deceptive or dishonest, doesn’t that put someone in a position to sue them for libel? That’s typically a VERY dangerous position to put oneself in as a news agency. Dan Rather was a good example of that, no?

  8. First, GP, I think we need to meet while you’re in Dallas, especially since I so rarely make it to DC. 🙂

    Second off, Reader, the dishonesty comes from the fact that the default in regards to Iraq was that Iraq HAD WMDs. Saddam was saying they did, all the Western intelligence agencies did, even Scott Ritter (before he went on Saddam’s payroll) did.

    I would phrase it this way; the last time the liberal left told us something wasn’t a threat, it was bin Laden’s being shielded and protected by the Taliban. That was a far more arguable case than letting an insane dictator with the desire and means to kill thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Americans hold on to both the power to and the ability to do so.

    What the American public simply has to accept is that the price of keeping the United States safer is that we have to put our military in harm’s way. We can do all we can to minimize the potential harm (and several things should have been done to do so in Iraq, but weren’t); however, we as civilians have to realize that an absolute refusal to use our armed forces, as Cindy Sheehan and her fellow leftists advocate, means two things: one, that we turn a blind eye to things going wrong around the world, and two, that we only react after thousands have already died.

    Toppling the Taliban and their support of bin Laden has so far cost us 228 American lives and approximately $30 billion dollars. One can generalize that a similar invasion carried out in 1998, when bin Laden made obvious his threats against the United States and when the Taliban refused to hand him over, would have cost roughly the same, if not less.

    In contrast, ignoring the Taliban and their support of bin Laden, as the liberal left demanded, cost us 2,819 lives, an estimated 422,000 New Yorkers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (i.e. Reader and GayCowboyBob), and an economic loss to New York alone of $105 billion.

    A chemical attack using what was known to be in Saddam’s arsenal, or a dirty bomb using the tons of enriched uranium he was already known to have (from the destruction of the Osirak reactor), or the biologicals he was believed to have and was known to have the capability to create, could have done as much damage, if not worse.

    That, in addition to Saddam’s starvation, imprisonment, torture, mutilation, ecocide, genocide, and outright murder of millions of Iraqis, as well as his overt bribing of the UN and government officials to ignore him, was more than plenty to argue the point in favor of removing him.

    However, it seems that the absolute requirement for the Left is now that thousands of Americans die before we act….and furthermore, as Cindy Sheehan has now revealed, the Left won’t even let us send troops when thousands have already died.

  18. Wow. After totally running and hiding from his discussion with me about Saddam’s proven connections to terrorists – and well after being banned here some time ago, right?? – Bob’s ba-a-a-a-a-ack…..

  19. #16 – Bob, just 1 question – Since “regulars” here have seen from previous discussions that you don’t really care about facts or truth – why would we be interested?

  20. #15 – Who would sue him? Who, ultimately did Rather’s libels injure? Bush was re-elected after all, and has a war to fight.

    Rather injured himself for sure, so I suppose he could sue himself……

  21. (having fun with this) John Kerry, on the other hand, ought to sue John O’Neill for libel – IF O’Neill’s claims are untrue – because O’Neill’s claims did injure Kerry; they essentially denied Kerry the Presidency.

    But Kerry never will sue O’Neill – or it will be a wonderful day for O’Neill if Kerry does…..because O’Neill’s claims were substantively true….a story for another time 😉

  22. Bob, now I really have to give you my thanks.

    I normally don’t read Michelle Malkin. But because you mentioned it, I went and there are good articles there.

    I highly recommend the Bryan Preston article on Vietnam and Iraq as post-modern media wars (where perception is reality, and defeatists like Bob end up assisting the enemy, whether they will or no).

    The Lorie Byrd article on “Chickenhawk talk” also looks good, though I’ve only had time to scan it very quickly.

    I know you didn’t intend to give me a gift, but you did anyway – thanks!

  23. My new word of the day, from Bryan Preston’s article: “caliphascist”.

    Pronounced “caliph – fascist”. Refers to the Islamo-fascist enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere….whose self-proclaimed purpose is to establish an 8th-century Islamic Caliphate over the whole world, or to exterminate us in trying.