Replies to post #41961 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh

The following brief history of ABC offers a perfect snapshot of everything that has gone wrong with the media. This remarkable story includes ABC's takeover by a conservative parent corporation, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, the rightward shift of the evening news, the rise of conservative talk radio, and the cozy relationship between a state and a press that are supposed to be separate.

In 1985, ABC was taken over by Capital Cities, a conservative, Roman Catholic media organization with extensive ties to the CIA.

(If you think we're making this up, you should know that the Capital Cities takeover of ABC is one of the most analyzed in history, and the subject of many books by Wall Street experts and scholars. Especially recommended is Networks of Power, by Emmy Award-winner Dennis Mazzocco.) (1)

Capital Cities was born in 1954, and rapidly prospered. Many of its founders had previously worked in the U.S. intelligence community and had a great amount of wealth, social contacts and influence in government. Yet they opted to keep the company's actions out of the public eye -- they did not flaunt their wealth with private planes and lavish offices the way so many successful companies do. Just exactly how well-connected Capital Cities was to the CIA is unknown, but it is clear that the CIA concerned itself with the company at various times. The fact that the CIA has often used private businessmen, journalists and even entire companies as fronts for covert operations is not only well-known by historians, but legendary. (Recall Howard Hughes and Trans-World Airlines...)

One of Capital City's early founders was William Casey, who would later become Ronald Reagan's Director of the CIA. At the time of Casey's nomination, the press expressed surprise that Reagan would hire a businessman whose last-known intelligence experience was limited to OSS operations in World War II. The fact is, however, that Casey had never left intelligence. Throughout the Cold War he kept a foot in both worlds, in private business as well as the CIA. A history of Casey's business dealings reveals that he was an aggressive player who saw nothing wrong with bending the law to further his own conservative agenda. When he became implicated as a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, many Washington insiders considered it a predictable continuation of a very shady career.

Another Capital Cities founder, Lowell Thomas, was a close friend and business contact with Allen Dulles, Eisenhower's CIA Director, and John Dulles, the Secretary of State. Thomas always denied being a spy, but he was frequently seen at events involving intelligence operations. Another founder was Thomas Dewey, whom the CIA had given millions to create other front companies for covert operations.

Capital Cities prospered from the start; its specialty was to buy media organizations that were in trouble. Upon acquisition, it would improve management and eliminate waste until the company started turning a profit. This no-nonsense, no-frills approach, as well as its refusal to become side-tracked with other ventures, made it one of the most successful media conglomerates of the 60s and 70s. Of course, the journalistic slant of its companies was decidedly conservative and anticommunist. To anyone who believes that the government should not control the press, the possibility that the CIA created a media company to dispense conservative and Cold War propaganda should be alarming. Rush Limbaugh himself calls freedom of the press "the sweetest -- and most American -- words you will ever find." (2) Apparently, he is unaware of the history of his own employers.

By the 1980s, Capital Cities had grown powerful enough that it was now poised to hunt truly big game: a major television network. A vulnerable target appeared in the form of ABC, whose poor management in the early 80s was driving both its profits and stocks into oblivion. Back then, ABC's journalistic slant was indeed liberal; its criticism of the Reagan Administration had drawn the wrath of conservatives everywhere, from Wall Street to Washington. This was in marked contrast to the rest of the White House press corps, which was, in Bagdikian's words, "stunningly uncritical" of Reagan. Behind the scenes, Reagan was deregulating the FCC and eliminating anti-monopoly laws for the media, a fact the media appreciated and rewarded. The only exception was ABC. Sam Donaldson's penetrating questions during press conferences were so embarrassing to Reagan that his handlers scheduled the fewest Presidential press conferences in modern history.

Another controversy involving the liberal slant of ABC was its airing of the anti-nuclear war movie The Day After. This movie angered conservatives like Henry Kissinger, who believe that the willingness to use nuclear weapons is actually a deterrence to war. But Kissinger got a chance to respond to the movie on national television. Nightline followed the movie with a group discussion that included Kissinger and other conservative pundits. The reason why ABC was so even-handed, presenting both a liberal and conservative viewpoint on nuclear war, was because they were required to by law: the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 by the FCC. Reagan had staffed the FCC with prominent media businessmen who were intent on slashing government regulations… the equivalent of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Among the many other regulations slashed during the Reagan years were anti-trust laws that prevented the media from becoming a monopoly. Much of this was done under heavy pressure by corporate lobbyists.

In this atmosphere of deregulation, Capital Cities found the perfect time to take over ABC. Not only were all the legal restrictions removed, but by now Casey was head of the CIA, and whatever contacts existed between the CIA and Casey's company (in which Casey held substantial stock) were immeasurably strengthened. Capital Cities soon began buying out ABC stock. The facts of the acquisition remain curious and unconventional. Capital Cities was only one-fourth the size of ABC, and there were much wealthier corporate giants who were salivating over a plum like a television network. But word got out on Wall Street that the Capital Cities takeover bid was "protected" by Warren Buffet, a legendary trader often described as the "Darling of Wall Street." (Until 1995, Buffet was the richest man in America.) With Buffet's help, Capital Cities took over ABC. According to one source, a high-ranking CIA official teased Casey, saying, "I understand Sam Donaldson is working for you now."

Sam Donaldson would not be tormenting Republican presidents for long. By the Bush Presidency, Donaldson was removed from covering the White House and paired with Diane Sawyer in a weekly news magazine that covered political fluff. Brit Hume, a staunch conservative, would take his place, and the same torment that ABC once reserved for Ronald Reagan would now be directed towards Bill Clinton.

The new conservatism at ABC was subtle but apparent. Peter Jennings, noting that the program's "American Agenda" had a liberal slant, stated that the news would pay more attention to conservatives, since their ideas are "more provocative and less predictable on some issues."

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales noted that of all the networks, ABC was the "friendliest to and least critical of the Bush Administration and its policies." After the war, ABC marketed a video of General Schwartzkopf's famous briefing of the war, entitled "Schwartzkopf: How the War was Won." It sold 80,000 copies. Later, it would market a video on life and times of Richard Nixon.

It would be wrong, of course, to conclude that ABC had gone Attila the Hun. ABC News remained a source of somewhat balanced coverage; both Sam Donaldson and George Will continued to do battle every Sunday on This Week With David Brinkley. Indeed, some of the most scientific pieces warning about the destruction of the ozone layer came from ABC. The owners at Capital Cities/ABC couldn't make the Evening News blatantly conservative because such a change would be too controversial. But this did not defeat their effort. They could still create a conservative forum from scratch, and in this regard, the dying market of AM radio offered the opportunity of a lifetime.

There are about 11,000 radio stations in the U.S., and Capital Cities/ABC is by far the largest player. Either through outright ownership or the sale of numerous services, they reach about half the radio stations in America, and this number is growing. With the Fairness Doctrine repealed, Capital Cities was able in 1988 to begin broadcasting one-sided editorials on conservatism. ABC Radio Network President Edward McLaughlin scoured the nation's radio stations for conservative talent, and his search led him to Sacramento, to a little known disc-jockey named Rush Limbaugh. Rush had attracted an audience with his vigorous and spirited defense of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings. McLaughlin brought him to New York City for a one-month "on-air" trial at Capital Cities/ABC's flagship radio station, WABC. For the next two years, ABC put him on the fast track, handling all his marketing, advertising and promotion. For legal purposes, and to protect ABC's image of supposed objectivity, Rush formed his own media company, Excellence in Broadcasting. But to this day Rush continues to broadcast out of WABC's studios in New York.

ABC initially promoted Rush by arranging his appearance on other debating shows, from Nightline to Donahue to MacNeil/Lehrer. (Unfortunately, he did so poorly against real live experts that this practice was eventually stopped.) Perhaps the most eye-brow raising example of Rush's promotion was when he appeared on an episode of ABC's 20/20 for an interview with Barbara Walters. Given Rush's criticism of feminists as "feminazis," this interview was built up as a confrontation between a female reporter in the mainstream media and Rush's supposedly misogynist views. The fact that Barbara Walters herself is conservative was nowhere mentioned. During the interview, Rush came across as charming, humorous, reasonable and moderate, and Walters closed the segment by stating that she actually liked him.

Ted Koppel's incessant praise of Rush Limbaugh is also an attempt to bring him into the mainstream. The back cover of See, I Told You So blurbs: "As no less a liberal than Ted Koppel... said, 'You ignore him at your peril.'" On television, Koppel has laughed with admiration over Limbaugh, calling him "terribly articulate." But the anchor of Nightline is far from liberal; indeed, Rush Limbaugh had to publicly apologize to Koppel for calling him one. And researchers have criticized Nightline for featuring a highly disproportionate number of experts who are white male conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh explains his success as the result of his individualism, of his refusal to do it someone's else's way. But the fact is that his success has been orchestrated, financed and promoted by Capital Cities/ABC. He also seems extraordinarily well-connected to the Republican leadership in Washington, carrying out their campaign strategies so faithfully that it is difficult to distinguish his promotions from their campaign commercials. For example, when Rush's television show debuted nationally two months before the 92 election, his producer was Roger Ailes, who was Bush's media advisor throughout the campaign. Many of the themes that Ailes had inspired earlier in the campaign showed up in identical form on Rush's show, which resembled a program-length commercial for the Bush campaign. When asked to give equal time to his opponents, Rush responded "I am equal time!"

In 1994, not only the Rush Limbaugh Show, but hundreds of other conservative talk shows dutifully raised the issues that Newt Gingrich's Contract Information Center faxed to them each morning about the Contract With America. Many went so far as to read them verbatim over the air. And when the Republicans captured Congress in 1994, they held a ceremony in honor of Limbaugh, naming him "an honorary member of Congress" and "the Majority Maker." That night, the conservative propaganda machine had reached its full potential.

Return to the Long FAQ on Liberalism
[ http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm ]

Return to "Liberal Media" essay
[ http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm ]

Endnotes:

1. This history of ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh is based on Dennis Mazzocco, Networks of Power (Boston: South End Press, 1994).

2. Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), p. 380.

© Copyright by Steve Kangas

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

[rooster]

Bill Clinton Personally Attempts to Get
ABC's Path to 9/11 Mini-Series Recut

September 1, 2006




BEGIN TRANSCRIPT



RUSH: I told you people yesterday and the day before of a movie, a mini-series running on ABC on September 10th and 11th, called The Path to 9/11 and I told you that I have the DVDs. I also told you because I am in touch -- I am poor when I'm in New York -- I do not have a DVD player. I don't. My apartment's got an old media room in it, it's got a laser disk player in it, but it doesn't have a DVD. Well, actually it has a DVD player in it, but the TV doesn't work. The projector does, and it's the only room in the house where there's a DVD player, and I can't watch DVDs on computers because I can't hear well through computer speakers. So I watched it. It's four hours.

I have the DVDs right here. I'm holding them in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. I watched on the plane flight home last night. I watched part of the first one. I had to go to the airplane to watch it. I'll tell you, this is called being in touch with the average American. I couldn't watch a DVD at home. At any rate, let me just give you the upshot of this, because I've mentioned to you even without having seen it I know what it's about. The Path to 9/11 essentially chronicles everything we know that happened in the nineties that prevented the capture of Osama bin Laden. It indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger.

It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail, which I will get to in just a moment. That's not the point. I mentioned to you yesterday or the day before, the days are running together, that a friend of mine did this. His first name is Cyrus, and Cyrus has got some other film credits. He took it to Washington in the middle of last week and screened it for people and it caused nearly bloody uproar where they showed it. Richard Ben-Veniste went up in Cyrus's face and told him it was disgusting. This film was disgusting. It caused all kinds of havoc and that led to the creation of efforts to try to get this program banned, put pressure on ABC to get it canceled and not run and so forth.

It also had a lot of people in the room that loved it. There were many people, Michael Barone saw it, a lot of people were in the screening there and loved it. Here is what is happening today. Bill Clinton himself is going to call Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, and demand or ask that this mini-series, The Path to 9/11, be reedited and recut so as not to depict Bill Clinton and his administration as they are currently portrayed in this mini-series. Bill Clinton himself is going to call Bob Iger -- and this is not breaking news; I got the e-mail on this last night, and there have been some local hosts out in California who have been talking about this, but there is a huge movement afoot from inside the Clinton administration to put pressure on ABC to get this thing recut, reedited, if not more. Very powerful players obviously, much higher than just Richard Ben-Veniste and so forth.


You know, folks, the whole 9/11 Commission, if you go back and look at these things that we know now, the Clinton administration's ability to camouflage history, to rewrite it, is just amazing. Look at who they got on the 9/11 Commission. They got Jamie Gorelick, who authored the wall, and this mini-series explains the wall and gives illustrations of fact of how it hurt our ability to capture Osama bin Laden. I'll get to that in just a second. They had had Gorelick on there; they had Ben-Veniste (who was a partisan hack lawyer from the Watergate days), and Tim Roemer, who is a Democrat from Indiana, and that was to ensure that the Clinton administration was protected, and so that the top structural explanation for intelligence failure was white-washed.

The final report of the 9/11 Commission is a particular disgrace in that regard. They had Sandy Burglar, to this day we've never really been told what classified documents Sandy Burglar purloined and destroyed and maybe put back in the National Archives while he was helping prep Clinton for his 9/11 Commission testimony. Remember, we heard Bush had to take Cheney in there, because he couldn't do it on his own and he was in there and Cheney and some lawyers. Clinton, why, he went in by himself, and Clinton was masterful. We found out Clinton was in there with Bruce Lindsey and other lawyers as well. All of this that we heard was a smoke screen.

I don't understand why the Bush administration, the Department of Justice, gave Burglar the sweetheart deal of the century, then suppressed all the evidence involved in his action. Like I asked at the time, can you imagine if Condoleezza Rice had pled guilty to a misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, the media sitting silent about it? Anyway, the reason the Clinton administration keeps doing this, the reason they keep engaging in their camouflage of history and their whitewashing of history, is because they keep getting away with it. Why wouldn't you keep doing it if you keep getting away with it? Now, take a brief break and come back and give you some examples of what this mini-series says and portrays.

It's The Path to 9/11, Touchstone TV did it, and it's nine o'clock out there on the Left Coast. I don't know if Clinton's called already or not, but the word is that he is personally going to call Bob Iger and do everything he can to get this thing reedited, recut. I wouldn't be surprised if he asked him not to run it. "Hey, Bob, you know, the thing's full of paste, pack full lies. I've heard about this. There's nothing to it. This is crazy." If I were ABC, I would love the controversy because of the attention, the publicity the thing is getting. You know they're not going to look at it that way. If they demand that it be reedited and recut the whole world is going to know that Bill Clinton was able to tell ABC what to do and what not to do with some of its programming. So, you know, ABC's going to be in a little bit of a tight spot no matter what they do here, but I would think that they had to clear this already for it to have been put on the schedule.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Let me just give you, as I say, I haven't been able to watch the whole thing. It's four hours, and I had a chance to watch a little bit of it flying home last night from New York. There is an amazing scene, a sequence, actually. It shows the CIA and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance surrounding bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They are on the verge -- this is during the Clinton administration. This is long before 9/11, which is the point of the mini-series: "How did we get there?" So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they're on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they're afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed. Sandy Burglar essentially tells the CIA team in Afghanistan, if they want to capture bin Laden, they're going to have to do it themselves without any official authorization. In that way their necks would be on the line, not his and not Clintons. Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. "Are you kidding?" He asked Berger over and over, "Is this really what you guys want?"

Berger then doesn't answer after giving his first admonition, "You guys go in on your own. If you go in we're not sanctioning this, we're not approving this," and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions. So the CIA team and the Northern Alliance of the Afghanistan people are just -- I mean they're right there, as it's portrayed in the mini-series, give up. They abandon the whole mission, and not long after that, that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda bomb the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children and also wounded over 4,000.

There's also a scene that I saw in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but the CIA refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the wall that was erected by Jamie Gorelick and others to prevent information sharing between government agencies. So the CIA is depicted here as sitting in a meeting with the FBI, John O'Neill is present, showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects, some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the guys in the pictures but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O'Neill protests that it's impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify these guys if they won't provide any information whatsoever on them.


So O'Neill tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them. The CIA becomes hostile to O'Neill, takes the pictures back. Now, O'Neill, as you recall, tragically dies in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. I'll tell you, the scenes like these really challenge what is the prevailing liberal mind-set by showing that the Patriot Act's information sharing and surveillance provisions are in fact crucial to the safety of the country and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism's greatest friend.

This thing is just incredible, and you watch it -- if you get to see it uncut; I'm loathe to predict what ABC will do amidst mounting pressure from Bill Clinton and others who are going today to call Bob Iger at ABC to demand some of this stuff be edited out. I don't know what specifically, but they're not happy about this. This just caused a real ruckus at the screening, the private screening in Washington last week, and the week before last. When you watch this, when you see it, none of it will surprise you if you're a regular listener to this program, because this is stuff what we have been told and we've known for the longest time. What surprises us is the whitewash of all this and how they were so successful at doing it at the 9/11 Commission.

Clinton is on tape talking about how -- our buddies at NewsMax have this tape. He's making a speech somewhere, I think in Long Island. Maybe it was Canada. I'm not sure where. But he was talking about how they had bin Laden but they couldn't move on him. We know the Sudanese offered him a bunch of times. This episode in Afghanistan, the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding bin Laden, the administration wouldn't give the go-ahead, and it's amazing to watch something that in what we call the mainstream media reflects accurately what we believe, what we know to have happened. I'm so unused to seeing that; I'm so used to seeing a liberal agenda in everything. So you're not surprised by what you see because you know it. I wasn't surprised because this is the version of events that I believe happened and that I know to be true. We know the wall was erected. We know it was. Ashcroft read the memo at the 9/11 Commission hearing. We know all of this. You just don't expect to see it, and that's the pleasant surprise watching it.


RUSH : Here is a quote from Cyrus, who is a friend of mine who produced and wrote The Path to 9/11. There's a review of the film, by the way, at FrontPage.com, David Horowitz's website. "This mini-series is not just about the tragedy of the events of 9/11. It dramatizes how we got there, going back eight years to the first attack on the World Trade Center and dealing with the Al-Qaeda strikes against US embassies and forces in the nineties, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, et cetera. We see the heroes on the ground like FBI agent John O'Neill and others who, after the '93 attack felt sure the terrorists would strike the World Trade Center again.

"It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the administration had in the nineties to stop bin Laden in his tracks. But he lacked the will to do so. We also revealed the day by day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened." It illustrates the big problem in the administration was not Monica Lewinsky. The big problem was what the Lewinsky circumstance with Clinton caused to be ignored and not dealt with, and of course there are reasons other than Lewinsky as well. The Clinton administration simply didn't want to tackle big things.

They were happy for the nineties to be thought of as a happy-go-lucky, carefree time, where there were no threats, because, of course, Bill Clinton was loved universally, adored universally all over the world. The economy was going great guns and all through the nineties we had repeated terrorist attack after repeated terrorist attack with no action taken to stop them. Now, I don't know what Bob Iger's going to say if Clinton does call him, which, believe me, last night that was -- and I have this on good authority. This is not gossip. Last night Clinton was intending to call today Bob Iger to get him to edit the thing, to re-cut it in certain ways. I don't know how you do that without -- no time to go in and re-film things.

But, at any rate, if I were Bob Iger -- and I'm not -- you know what I would say if Bill Clinton does call me and say, "Hey, Bob, you know, I've heard about this thing you're running. Some of my friends have seen this. It's a pack full of lies, Bob, packed full of them. I mean, we did our best, I never worked harder at anything in my life, you know that, Bob? I kept you briefed on all this. I supported you when you wanted to be Eisner's replacement. We all know Eisner was full of it, and I'm very much happy that you're in the job right now, but I've gotta tell you Bob, this is BS. It's not going to help ABC whatsoever."

All right. If I'm Iger, I say, "Mr. President, I understand all that, but if you're so upset about this, could you show me where it's wrong? Could you sort of prove to me that what's in this is not accurate? If you can do that, then, yeah, but I can't just do this because you want me to. Since everybody now knows you called me anyway, if I order this thing redone, I'm going to look like a sock puppet of the Clinton administration, and I'm trying to establish my own identity here as the brand-new CEO of ABC and Disney. Mr. President, if you can prove to me that the charges made this thing, the evidence here is really wrong, I'd be glad to have them redo it." I don't think the Clinton administration wants to do that, because I don't think they can.


If they could they would have done it long ago. Look, the 9/11 committee was nothing more than camouflage. In fact, you know what the word for it was? To get Gorelick and Tim Roemer and Ben-Veniste on the 9/11 Commission, they were censors. What Clinton wants ABC to do is censor certain things. Now, if Clinton could offer evidence that what Cyrus has put together here is BS, then let him do so, but they would have done it up to now, if they could. They wouldn't have had to have Sandy Burglar sneaking into the National Archives, walking out of there with documents in his pants, in his socks or whatever, and then walking back in and, as I say, who knows what he put back in. Everybody was focused on what he took out of there.

I was, frankly, a little bit more interested in what he put in there. National Archives. The, quote, unquote, historical record. So, anyway, I hope this thing stands as is. It's just brilliantly done. It's not a docudrama. It's a mini-series, a movie, but it's historically based. As Cyrus describes it, it is a historical lesson, it's entertaining, it's terrifying. Danny Wahlberg is in it; Harvey Keitel is in it. It's got some major actors in this thing. It's not some phony put-together thing. They're using footage in it, but I mean it's written based on the historical record. Gale, cell phone call from Texas , you're up first on Open Line Friday. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH : You bet.

CALLER: It's a pleasure to speak with you.

RUSH : Thank you.

CALLER: Hey, I'm here with my husband, we're driving through Texas listening to you and a thought came to our mind, if ABC won't show the documentary uncut, perhaps you, Rush, could use the power of the EIB Network as a place where we 20 million listeners could purchase the CD and get the uncut version.

RUSH : Well, it's an interesting question. We don't own it. This is Touchstone Television that did this, which is a division of Disney.

CALLER: Well, you know lots of people. I'm sure you could work something out.

RUSH : Well (laughing) I am so flattered and moved by your confidence. It will be interesting to see what does happen with this and if there does become an alternate way to distribute it. But if Touchstone wants to bury it, they can. Now, I should tell you, I don't want to get the wrong idea. They're standing by it now. The Clinton phone call, I have no idea how this is going to go, but they've been pressured since a week and a half ago, folks. I mean, there are people going to take out ads against this thing, trying to discredit it, a lot of lib Democrats who saw this at the screening in Washington were just outraged by it, as you can well imagine. Their whole lives during service in the Clinton administration and in the years since has been to cover up the lack of action in this area taken by this administration and to try to present it as just the opposite of what happened. The Clinton administration has forever been in search of a legacy. It has been doing everything it can to try to come up with a legacy, and this involves the massaging of news, the censorship of certain things. I think it's quite telling that they're now upset about this, because this is going to, if it airs, cause people to think about everything they've heard about 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission and from the Drive-By Media.


END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

(FrontPage.com: ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' )
(NB: Film Explores Assasination of President Bush)
(RCP: What It Means to Protect the Nation - Ed Koch)
(RCP: New Enemies Demand New Thinking - Donald Rumsfeld)
(American Thinker: The Death of a President: Political Pornography)

eStack: Sandy Burglar and Trousergate


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.