Reply With Quote
Could it be that WE, as individuals, are responsible for terrorism, given we don't really hold our political and corporate business leaders responsible for ?
The "I banged an ugly chick" in The Club is extremely relavent here.
Man, does it really matter? The American public always gets history wrong anyhow, so really couldn't care less if the losers who want to watch a "docudrama" over 2 nights get incorrect info.
Could it be that WE, as individuals, are responsible for terrorism, given we don't really hold our political and corporate business leaders responsible for ?
The "I banged an ugly chick" in The Club is extremely relavent here.
I think in most cases it's years later that we find out that what we thought was history, wasn't really history. For instance, there is strong evidence today that Roosevelt may have known Pearl Harbor was gonna get hit, but nobody suspected that in the 40's and 50's, so it never made it into any docu-drama about WW2.
Here, we know what happened today. Bin Laden was never offered to the U.S.
More:As a result of international pressure, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave the country in 1996. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan," but would not accept offers to extradite him to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden chartered a plane and moved to Afghanistan that year.[5][6]
In 2002, private businessman Mansoor Ijaz and one-time U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney claimed that Ijaz had in 1996 negotiated "through unofficial channels" a Sudanese offer to extradite bin Laden to the U.S., but that the offer had been denied.[7] Former Sudanese officials have made similar claims. Clinton administration officials testified that they had never received such an offer, and the 9/11 Commission stated that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."[8] President Bill Clinton later said that "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.
Wikipedia, Bin LadenAttempts at assassination and requests for the extradition of Bin Laden from the Taliban of Afghanistan were met with failure[13]. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him
So the Clinton W.H. did try to assassinate Bin Laden, contrary to wing-nut talking-points.
God... this pisses me off on SO many levels. Clinton's record of weakness speaks for itself, so for him to whaa-whaa about NOT being a baby when it came to taking out terrorists just pisses me off.
The Dem's are calling this the Republican's answer to Michael Moore, simply because they don't look good. Got news for ya, Dems.... the media is SLANTED LEFT, so for them to come out with a "fiction-based-upon-fact" miniseries that bites you in the ass shocks the heck outta me. I'm glad to see it... but how much you wanna bet ABC caves and edits some of the story out to make Clinton look a little better?
The Miniiseries points out as i understand it the completely feckless response of Clinton’s national security team to 8 years of provocation by bin Laden and AQ.
The Clintonistas are predictably appalled at having the inherent weakness of the current Democrat party on national defense so brutally exposed.
They have been coasting on nostalgic feel good memories of peace and prosperity when the stock market soared, there was a Hummer in every driveway, and people worldwide loved us.
Except the internet bubble burst draining away all that faux-prosperity, as it turned out we weren’t actually at peace we were just failing to act as our enemies continued to attack us, and trust me nobody loved us then either.
Ah well at least they can point to the quagmire in Iraq and show that things haven’t gotten any better.
Not that it will happen, but I would like to see SOME FOLKS around here
R E A D
the commission report instead of picking out snips that support their positions.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
What fun is that? Besides, the whole Commission was a whitewash anyway. I mean, how can you say you ran a serious investigation and not even question the live-in girlfriend of the head the main terra cell in Florida, Muhamed Atta? When it comes to the truth about 911, there are questions that will only be answered in time if at all.
The Mind, Like a Parachute, Functions Only When Open, things aren't always what they seem to be. There's much to question about not only the report but who was involved in creating it and for what purpose.But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.
Look at the background of the people on the committee and where are they now.As quoted from the report:
Page 146 - "Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress."
Page 147 - "Although the structure of the Committee provides for effective bipartisan oversight, the recent agenda of its membership has not fallen in line with the Committee's primary purpose."
Page 147 - "The Chairman's additional views in this second report lay out the factual discrepancies, false impressions and inaccuracies;"
It also appears that some of the President's more vocal opponents are on the committee, like:
John D. Rockefeller IV, WV (D), Carl Levin, MI (D), Dianne Feinstein, CA (D), Ron Wyden, OR (D), Evan Bayh, IN (D), Barbara A. Mikulski, MD (D), Russell D. Feingold, WI (D), Harry Reid, NV (D)
Guess the three remaining issues will be released just before the 2008 elections. We can all be "Shocked" by the new relevations, in 2008, all over again?
As an old "Farm Boy;" this story reminds me of my cows. My cows would eat disgusting food, bring it back up, and re-chew it, over, and over again. That action of the cows is very close to what the Senate and so-called NEWS organizations are doing with this information, I'm just a little concerned about who is swallowing what.
I could be wrong but I don't think this was accomplished by threat of legislative punishment but by a groundswell of conservatives who lobbied the network to yank the miniseries.
Like I said, so long as Congress leaves the official letterhead and FCC quotes out of the equation, I'd be alright with the opposition. I don't think ABC would have folded if they didn't feel like they were being threatened.
I've heard the docudrama is no piece of cake for the Bush administration either; painting Condoleeza Rice in a rather bad light. I also hear it lionizes Richard Clarke -- not quite a conservative icon -- so, why aren't the Republicans all up in arms?
Last edited by Yonivore; 09-09-2006 at 07:53 AM.
From the guy that just got through using a quote from the 9-11 Commission to defend Bill Clinton.
You're right the 9-11 Commission leaves out a lot but what's there doesn't exculpate Clinton's or his actions during the 8 years he was in office. And, I doubt what that what is missing would either.
What exactly, in the commission report or not, exculpates the Repugs between 20 Jan and 11 Sep 2001?
For those 8 months preceding the attack:
What were the priorities of the Repugs? (cutting taxes. anything else? no. )
What were the specific NATIONAL SECURITY priorities of the Repugs?
Did any of the attack warnings and info the percolated up through the CIA, NSA, FBI to the WH permit the WH to connect the dots, or not, just raise alert, and put the national security agencies and airport security apparatus on high alert?
Or was their priority taking a big summer vacation, both in the WH and at Crawford, after ramming through the most unfair tax cuts in American history?
Was the WH national security apparatus suffiiciently paranoid about national security? What simply doesn't add up is that Repugs were asleep a tthe wheel, in full dereliction of duty before 9/11.
Since 9/11, the Repugs main output has been the:
1) disastrous DHS,
2) the phony Iraq war,
3) the non-stop scare-mongering that the incredibly powerful, sneaky, motivated, well-financed, globe-spanning terrorists can easily strike the USA anywhere, anytime, a question of only "when, not if",
4) raising bull terror alerts,
...while all the time claiming 100% responsibility for successfully protecting America,
while exploiting their bogus war on terror for exclusivly Repug partisan advantage,
while spreading the myth that NOBODY could have prevented the WTC attack because CLINTON had ed up so bad.
btw, the Repugs have not addressed their role in distracting Clinton and his WH from his primary job by Repugs financing of and conducting of witch-hunts against the Clintons and finally impeaching Clinton, a purely political tactic that surely freed Clinton to concentrate on national security.
Were the WH Repugs prevented from raising any alert because they hadn't yet invented a hokey, mutli-colored traffic light to express those alerts?
I'm convinced that info about terror attacks WERE presented to the WH, and were completely ignored. As is dubya's habit, Condi ed up and got promoted to State.The WH NatSec slackness has been completely, aggressively suppressed by the WH and the nat sec apparatus that has huge self-interest in hiding their incompetence, just as completely and aggressively as the Repug slime machine, which includes parrots like YV, is pinning ALL responsibility for WTC on Clinton.
Remember the WH spin after the attack, paraphrase the messages:
"There was NO WAY to foresee and defend against such an attack.
That's why we (WH) need to violate every privacy protection for US citizens.
The WTC was 100% the fault of Clinton and there was absolutely nothing the Repug WH could have done form Jan - Sep 2001 to prevent the attack. Clinton ed up the Repugs from doing our NatSec job."
A reason the Repugs aren't all "up in arms" is that, among other reasons:
"Cyrus Nowrasteh, the Republican and Limbaugh pal who served as the writer and a producer (of ABC show), told KRLA-AM in Los Angeles that the scene was improvised."
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/09...09dowd.html?hp
The Repugs, esp dubya and head, have dodged no bullets in this slime-job because all the bullets have been aimed at Clinton by a Repug writer. Anybody think this Nowrasteh guy has scribbled his fantasy script in total disconnect from Repug/WH slime-meisters?
Last edited by boutons_; 09-09-2006 at 03:58 PM.
Dear William Jefferson Clinton,
You were far from perfect during your tenure as President. We are going to expose some of that imperfection along with the imperfection of others. Quit whining and enjoy the show (or don't).
Sincerely,
Marc Platt
The film's executive producer, Marc Platt, <said> that many of the film's most vocal critics haven't yet seen it. "I'm not sure that what they think is there, is there," he said Friday by phone from London.
I'll make a deal with the bush lovers. If we are going to hold clinton accountable based on what is presented in this series then EVERYTHING indicting bush's missteps and 'possible' chances to stop 9/11 will be fair game for ridicule and accountablility. You can't protray only part of the story is true and then backtrack on the other half. From what I know there are parts that have been fictionalized and the makers took some artistic liberty making the movie so to know what is 100% fact or 'made up' is impossible. Unless your a partisan hack that will cherry pick what makes your side look good..then you are useless and a hypocrite..
More arm chair quaterbacking Yoni... typical.
That's why they called it a docudrama.
Personally, I don't care if they show it or not, edited or not; I'm just amused the Democrats have gotten so apoplectic about it.
Now you've got Clinton's personal lawyers writing to ABC.
It must really make him look bad.
This is what I think this is going on. If there is something in the movie that is of extraordinary significance I would want to ensure that what is portrayed is accuracte. Especially if what is portrayed is plain wrong. I will use this scenerio as an example: If in the movie there was a scene in which President Bush got information that Osama was going to attack us and the portrayal of the President is that he laughs and notes that he does not take this seriously.
If this situation did not happen as is being portrayed and I am a part of Bush's team I am making sure that this un-truth is addressed. I would be outraged that a serious matter such as this was being portrayed inaccurately and I certainly want the public to know that this was not the case.
That's just it. If that were the case I doubt you'd see President Bush giving it much thought at all.
You might have some Republican Congresspeople making noise but, then again, I doubt you'd have them writing threatening letters on Congressional letterhead.
That's what's so freakin' funny about this. The Democrats, once again, are absolutely wiggin' out.
Please share with the forum "what you know" to be fiction. Or did you mean, from what you heard?
STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a do entary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.
I'm making it up of course..
Okay GGA, I thought you were referring to specifics rather than what we already knew.
The following is from a letter Clinton's lawyers sent to ABC, demanding that they not air the docudrama. It's totally ridiculous.
-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.
How did they come to the conclusion that editing the film is an admission that it's irreparably flawed? Logic defying.
The buzz that ABC has created by using drug-abuser/rabble-rouser porky RL as pot stirrer will generate 10's of $Ms in advertizing revenue for ABC.
The more scandalous, untrue, biased, and defamatory ABC makes it, the more $$$ they make. Crime pays.
Best line out of the whole movie:
"Are there any real men left in Washington? Or, are they all cowards?"
However the ? has been rhetorical for a number of years.
See, that's what I love about you boutons. You can take anything and turn it into more of your mindless political bull drivel.
Keep up the bad work
I love how Clinton and his crew couldn't 'connect the dots' in his entire administration, but somehow you have to take a pot shot at W. for not figuring it out in eight months.
Yet you come on here and insist time and again how great and smart Clinton and his people are, and how stupid and horrible W and his crew is.
If that's the case, the 'blame' for 9/11 should fall at the feet of Clinton.
Look, it's stupid to blame *anyone*. People ed up on both sides. Both administrations ed up. People who fall on both sides of the aisle in Congress ed up. People who were members of both political parties (voting purposes) that worked at the various intelligence agencies ed up.
All this 'it's all so and so's fault' is about as old as Dikembe Mutombo. ing let it go, you partisan twits.
"I love about you boutons"
I love you, too, less.
"Clinton and his crew couldn't 'connect the dots' "
There were lots of indications that Clinton was very concerned about al Quida, when he wasn't being distracted by Repug's impotent impeachment and other harrassments.
There were NO indicatons that the Jan-Feb 2001 Repugs had ANY concerns about al-Quaida until 12 Sep.
I don't insist the Clinton was blameless, but I've yet to hear anybody defend the NatSec fecklessness of Repugs from Jan to Sep.
If it's pointless to blame anyone, then why is the right wing and Repugs dumping 100% of responsibility for al quaida on Clinton. you don't even make internal consistency. They do it do deflect the extremely serious responsibility for WTC from dubya.
I'll let it go as soon as the Repugs and right wing ers quit dumping it all on Clinton and lay most of the blame on dubya.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
