ABC 911 Docudrama Short On Facts

[Yonivore]

On 26 February 1993...

I'm sorry, I don't get the point of what you just posted or why any of it would have prevented President Clinton from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden on the mul ude of times the opportunity presented itself.

And, everything in that post only confirms the principal criticism of the Clinton administration; that Bill Clinton treated global terrorism as a law enforcement matter instead of a national security matter.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm sorry, I don't get the point of what you just posted or why any of it would have prevented President Clinton from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden on the mul ude of times the opportunity presented itself.

oh ok you are going ignore your previous statement:

What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet? Of course with that logic we better start killing or capturing 200 million people right?..

[Spurminator]

One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet?

Well he didn't fly the planes into the WTC towers either, did he?

[Yonivore]

oh ok you are going ignore your previous statement:

What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.

He did essentially nothing to disrupt the operation of al Qaeda. He treated each instance you listed as a law enforcement matter (which, by the way, makes the timing of the desert missile attack on the empty tent even more suspect) instead of as an enemy attack.

One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet?

With this application of your common sense, Osama bin Laden still hasn't done anything. After all, he didn't fly the planes into the World Trade Center, did he?

Of course with that logic we better start killing or capturing 200 million people right?..

So, using your logic, has Osama bin Laden done anything for which we should be pursuing his death or prosecution? Just curious since you seem so unclear on the matter.

And, if so, exactly when did he cross the line for you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

He did essentially nothing to disrupt the operation of al Qaeda. He treated each instance you listed as a law enforcement matter (which, by the way, makes the timing of the desert missile attack on the empty tent even more suspect) instead of as an enemy attack.


With this application of your common sense, Osama bin Laden still hasn't done anything. After all, he didn't fly the planes into the World Trade Center, did he?


So, using your logic, has Osama bin Laden done anything for which we should be pursuing his death or prosecution? Just curious since you seem so unclear on the matter.

And, if so, exactly when did he cross the line for you?

he crossed the line when he acted .. so I will ask again what are we going to do with the 200 million muslims who want to do us harm? some have not done anything but they want to hurt us... arrest the all? kill them all?

speaking of a law enforcement manner.. I seem to remember recently that the british police arrested some terrorists ta home.. I guess they should have sent the military into their apartments because after all it's not a law
enofrcement issue..


Hey I heard one of osama's 4 yr old nephews hates america nad wants to kill them..better send up the drone and eliminate him..

[johnsmith]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is fresh. Bill Clinton talking about what he wants ABC to do about the film. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion on this movie, I just think it's funny what Clinton says.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton called for ABC to "tell the truth" in an upcoming miniseries about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Senior officials and advisers in Clinton's administration have attacked the accuracy of "The Path to 9/11," accusing filmmakers of including "fic ious" and even "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat.

"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.

[George Gervin's Afro]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is fresh. Bill Clinton talking about what he wants ABC to do about the film. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion on this movie, I just think it's funny what Clinton says.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton called for ABC to "tell the truth" in an upcoming miniseries about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Senior officials and advisers in Clinton's administration have attacked the accuracy of "The Path to 9/11," accusing filmmakers of including "fic ious" and even "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat.

"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.

yes I do agree this is rather funny in an uncomfortable sort of way

[Yonivore]

he crossed the line when he acted .. so I will ask again what are we going to do with the 200 million muslims who want to do us harm? some have not done anything but they want to hurt us... arrest the all? kill them all?

Aside from those in whom we're already engaged in battle, if any of the other "200 million" distinguish themselves and start to organize a group that seems as bound and determined to kill Americans as is Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and then sets about trying to do just that; yep, I say we kill 'em.

speaking of a law enforcement manner.. I seem to remember recently that the british police arrested some terrorists ta home.. I guess they should have sent the military into their apartments because after all it's not a law enofrcement issue..

I don't think Jamie Gorelick is in the Blair administration.

Hey I heard one of osama's 4 yr old nephews hates america nad wants to kill them..better send up the drone and eliminate him..

If he takes after his uncle and starts to organize a militant terrorist group whose chief aim is to attack Americans; yep, send in the drones.

[boutons_]

"And, on the subject of war-in-Iraq justification, as news spreads of the latest tape from al Qaeda in Iraq's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri), it is worth remembering that he set up shop in Baghdad by the middle of 2002."

BBC NEWS

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

( but it's good enough for head's and YV's 0.001% doctrine and the wasting of 2600+ US military lives )

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

( BULL . The "intelligence" WHIG presented was totally missing numerous, serious doubts by the intelligence community about that very same "intelligence", because WHIG cherry picked the intelligence FOR and suppressed all doubts AGAINST. )

But Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of the administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in 1982 and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/5328592.stm

Published: 2006/09/08 18:08:53 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[johnsmith]

"And, on the subject of war-in-Iraq justification, as news spreads of the latest tape from al Qaeda in Iraq's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri), it is worth remembering that he set up shop in Baghdad by the middle of 2002."

BBC NEWS

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

( but it's good enough for head's and YV's 0.001% doctrine and the wasting of 2600+ US military lives )

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

( BULL . The "intelligence" WHIG presented was totally missing numerous, serious doubts by the intelligence community about that very same "intelligence", because WHIG cherry picked the intelligence FOR and suppressed all doubts AGAINST. )

But Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of the administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in 1982 and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/5328592.stm

Published: 2006/09/08 18:08:53 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Honestly, I've never been more irritated by a human being in my life then what Boutons does to me. Not because of anything he says, but because he NEVER SAYS ANYTHING OF HIS OWN. If I ever meet boutons in the street I'm going to punch him in the groin.

[101A]

Honestly, I've never been more irritated by a human being in my life then what Boutons does to me. Not because of anything he says, but because he NEVER SAYS ANYTHING OF HIS OWN. If I ever meet boutons in the street I'm going to punch him in the groin.

I like the struff he posts that other people write better (there is some). Bouton's stuff is shrill, angry, and pointless. He ONLY calls names and throws fits. It's like trying to debate a spoiled six year old only child about whether we can have gummi bears for dinner - and she REALLY thinks we can.

[Yonivore]

I like the Confederate Yankee's response to this meme:

How Quickly They Forget

A Senate report on prewar intelligence in Iraq says that there is no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Predictably, Democrats are saying that this undercuts the President's justification for going to war.

They are deadly wrong.

Some intelligence experts might dispute the Senate's conclusions on Iraq, unless, of course, the Senate merely means that they didn't have evidence of Saddam and al-Zarqawi having tea.

Regardless, President Bush sent us to war because Saddam had well-do ented ties to many terrorist groups, making Baghdad host to a "Who's Who" of Islamic terrorists.

Abu Abbas, mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking that saw an elderly, wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer murdered and thrown over the side, was a long-time guest of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and was captured near Baghdad as a direct result of our 2003 invasion.

Abu Nidal, Palestinian terrorist mastermind led the Abu Nidal Organization, was another long-time terrorist-in-residence that died in Baghdad in 2002. The ANO was based in Iraq since 1998, and recieved training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq. They were shutdown by the invasion of Iraq after killing more than 900 people since 1974, and have not been heard from since.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb builder in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, was given money and housing by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I have a simple question for Senate Democrats:

How many more terrorist groups targeting and killing Americans would Saddam have had to support before you found an invasion worthwhile?

And please, pardon me, if I don't expect an answer. Democrats haven't had an answer for terrorism in five years, and I do'nt expect they'll suddenly come up with one now.

None of this even speaks to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, after 1991 -- against his own people -- or of his defiance of over 17 UNSC resolutions demanding his compliance.

[boutons_]

So far, 2600+ US military lives WASTED

The Repugs and wingnuts keep moving their justifications around. The overwhelming, take-home, end-all, be-all justification for invading Iraq (remember Powell being setup by the WHIG to stain his career with "mobile bio-weapon labs" dog-and-pony show for the UN) before the war was WMD. The mobile weapons labs were just another fabrication by the WHIG.

Since there were no WMD found before or after the invasion, Repugs and wingnuts have been since scrambling around to justify wasting 2600+ US military lives. They have failed. They will NEVER succeed.

Iraq is totally de-stablized after the US invasion.

The most likely Iraq outcome after the US leaves is a radical Shia theocracy allied to the radical Shia theocracy in Iran with a combined oil revenue of about $8B/month.

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

So, Repugs and wingnuts and red-state dumb s (that includes you johnsmith. If you can't stand the pushback and polarization, go yourself), keep scrambling, keep dragging in your little piles of rat reasons, they will never justify 2600 US military lives in the phony, disastrous Iraq war.

The dubya/ head/Iraq ARE the issues being voted on in November, and all Repugs at risk are distancing themselves from the WH as far as they can.

The majority of Americans, and that majority will only grow, are now convinced that the Iraq war was a mistake AND not worth the loss of US life.

(note: very sorry I didn't quote an article with my annotations. )

[johnsmith]

So far, 2600+ US military lives WASTED

See what happens when numbnuts doesn't post an article, he writes something like this. I'm sure the families of the soldiers would love to hear that their childrens/husbands/wives/brothers/etc lives were wasted.

[MannyIsGod]

See what happens when numbnuts doesn't post an article, he writes something like this. I'm sure the families of the soldiers would love to hear that their childrens/husbands/wives/brothers/etc lives were wasted.

I think people cna make up their own minds on whether or not they feel that way; its not up to boutons. But if they do feel that way I wonder who they feel wasted the lives.

[boutons_]

September 8, 2006

F.B.I. Agents Question Accuracy of 9/11 Series

By JESSE McKINLEY


Two retired F.B.I. agents said today that they had rejected advisory roles on the disputed ABC mini-series, “The Path to 9/11,” because of concerns about the program’s accuracy.

One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the producers of the mini-series in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he believed were misleading or just false.

“There were some of the scenes that were total fiction,” said Mr. Nicoletti, who served as a supervisory special agent and a member of the joint terrorism task force before retiring in 2003. “I told them unless they were changing this, I could not have my name associated with it.”

Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that placed people at places they had not been present at and scenes that depicted events that were out of chronological order.

“There were so many inaccuracies,” he said.

Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”

ABC, which has said that the mini-series is a docudrama about terrorism investigations prior to 9/11, not a do entary, has said that “for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”

Dan Coleman, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script last summer after being approached by producers about being a technical advisor.

“They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding,” Mr. Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me.”

Mr. Coleman said his concerns mainly dealt with the depiction of law enforcement officers, particularly John O’Neill, an F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. “I’m Irish and I believe in ghosts,” he said. “I don’t want to be haunted.” He said he passed on the job.

But Terry Carney, another former F.B.I. agent, took the position, which he said had more to do with correcting the look and demeanor of agents, not the facts of the investigation.

“I was never asked to comment on historical accuracy,” Mr. Carney said. “That wasn’t my role.”

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Nbadan's Avatar

Position: Dominant Center
Team: San Antonio Spurs
vBookie Cash: $25
Post Count: 12,777
Nbadan earned this Spur by being an original member of SpursTalk.com.

Default Re: ABC 911 Docudrama Short On Facts
I think it's hypocritical for ABC to run a obviously politically motivated docu-drama dressed up a do entary, profit free, two months before an election that could see their Congressional shills kicked out of office.

I think it's hypocritical for fat Michael Moore to make a science fiction piece and call it a do entary, but I didn't see your bigoted ass crying out about that, Dan.

In fact, you bought fully into the black helicopter bull and screamed bloody murder when anyone questioned Fat Bas , err, Moore.

Look in the mirror, asshole.

[valluco]

Moore is an idiot. But, his peice of film was NOT a public brodcast like this crap that is going to air on ABC. People had to pay money to see Moore's crap. ABC is running a two day ad for the Righties.

[Yonivore]

Moore is an idiot. But, his peice of film was NOT a public brodcast like this crap that is going to air on ABC. People had to pay money to see Moore's crap. ABC is running a two day ad for the Righties.

So, you'd be okay if it were moved to cable?

[smeagol]

Is there a need to repeat there was no link between AQ and Saddam?

No, there is no need. Everybody knows it. Let's move on.

[boutons_]

"Let's move on."

Was there a need to question Clinton about his sex life? "Let's move on."

dubya/ head/WHIQ tells lies, 10,000s of people dead. "let move on"

Clinton lies, nobody dies, let's impeach him.

[smeagol]

"Let's move on."

Was there a need to question Clinton about his sex life? "Let's move on."

dubya/ head/WHIQ tells lies, 10,000s of people dead. "let move on"

Clinton lies, nobody dies, let's impeach him.

Is there a need to defend Clinton?

What he did was reprimendable.

Move on.

And use the ing quote button!

[valluco]

So, you'd be okay if it were moved to cable?

It would be better off on cable TV. Don't forget about the peice that was done on the Patron Saint Ronald Reagan that the GOP didn't want on network TV and they succeeded in having it removed. It ended up on Showtime I believe. Why should it be OK for the Right to get what they want when they get their panties in a bunch, but when Rush's buddy and ABC want to play a two day "docudrama" with bull scenes that they claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission's report it's OK? Come on.

September the 11th is still fresh on the minds of most Americans. The wounds have not yet healed for a lot of people, especially the families of the victims. anyone (and I mean anyone, right or left) who uses it for political advantage. The whole thing makes me sick. But, I guess it's OK for the Republicans to use it in their favor.

[Ya Vez]

I heard sunday it's going to be about the clinton years and monday the bush year... lol... it's going to hurt both sides.. but its funny how the left is going ape over this... lol

[valluco]

I seriously doubt that it's going to hurt GeeDub. But anyways, I'm not wasting my time watching this crap. Afterall, IT'S FOOTBALL SEASON!!!