Gay Patriot Header Image

“Inside 9/11″ – VCR/TiVO Alert!

Posted by GayPatriot at 7:54 pm - August 21, 2005.
Filed under: War On Terror

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

Share

29 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.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — August 21, 2005 @ 10:21 pm - August 21, 2005

  2. Welcome to Dallas. I will record it on the VCR tomorrow evening Monday. Does your hotel room have a VCR?

    Comment by Tom In Dallas — August 22, 2005 @ 12:09 am - August 22, 2005

  3. To trust CNN to offer an honest report on a Republican administration or policy is like expecting an honest report on “homosexuals” from Gary Bauer.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 22, 2005 @ 3:23 am - August 22, 2005

  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.

    Comment by Reader — August 22, 2005 @ 6:53 am - August 22, 2005

  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.

    Comment by syn — August 22, 2005 @ 8:08 am - August 22, 2005

  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.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 22, 2005 @ 10:59 am - August 22, 2005

  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?

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 22, 2005 @ 11:24 am - August 22, 2005

  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.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2005 @ 11:34 am - August 22, 2005

  9. Yes, but GCB, despite Dan Rather’s many, many deceptioins, distortions and fabricated documents, no one has yet sued him for libel.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 22, 2005 @ 1:05 pm - August 22, 2005

  10. V-C-What?

    Comment by The Malcontent — August 22, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - August 22, 2005

  11. Does anybody know who frabicated the documents that Rather used?

    Comment by anon — August 22, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - August 22, 2005

  12. I think before the leftists ramp up their spinning of Rather as a poor misguided naive soul who was only reporting what he was told, they remember the particulars of the situation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - August 22, 2005

  13. More detail here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

    Alas, it’s still unresolved as to who forged them. I assume that Rather intentionally pushed the story to discredit Bush. Pajama Media is taking their name from this story. Maybe they could do an investigation when they launch.

    Comment by anon — August 22, 2005 @ 3:14 pm - August 22, 2005

  14. And GP, if you’re in Dallas, I insist on an audience with your Excellency….

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2005 @ 4:50 pm - August 22, 2005

  15. Don’t forget that’s not the only story Rather made up. Remember the one about the Vietnam Vets that he fabricated?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 22, 2005 @ 8:25 pm - August 22, 2005

  16. So again, why doesn’t someone sue him for libel?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — August 23, 2005 @ 2:09 am - August 23, 2005

  17. I’ve posted a response to michellemalkin.com’s latest rant about the Iraq war if anyone is interested at my blog.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — August 23, 2005 @ 2:11 am - August 23, 2005

  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…..

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 12:43 pm - August 23, 2005

  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?

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - August 23, 2005

  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……

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 12:47 pm - August 23, 2005

  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 ;-)

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 12:49 pm - August 23, 2005

  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!

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 1:45 pm - August 23, 2005

  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.

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - August 23, 2005

  24. Finished? :-)

    Now would you care to actually comment on my post?

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 23, 2005 @ 3:57 pm - August 23, 2005

  25. Sorry, you lost me. You mean your blog post? No, I’ve seen enough of you to have it as a low priority and today, I have to spend time on other things.

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 8:00 pm - August 23, 2005

  26. Besides – if you want a real discussion, and could possibly pry your mind open 2 millimeters for 10 seconds, you know where to find me.

    Off to class!

    Comment by joe — August 23, 2005 @ 8:03 pm - August 23, 2005

  27. Supercaliphaiscilistexpialidocious.

    Comment by anon — August 23, 2005 @ 9:00 pm - August 23, 2005

  28. OK, I admit that’s cute :-)

    Comment by joe — August 24, 2005 @ 1:18 am - August 24, 2005

  29. nice to be seen

    Comment by good to heard — September 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm - September 2, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.