| Author | Message | ||
     ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 200 Registered: 2-2006  |
"Path to 9/11" Truly Despicable http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html I used to think it couldn't happen here, but it's happening. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003087654 A note to parents, ABC is Disney. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5753 Registered: 5-2001 |
ABC has given advance copies to Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers, but refused to give copies to Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright. Albright writes ABC
Ignoring a former Secretary of State of The United States is beyond the pale. I can imagine the outcry if Condi Rice got such treatment. Berger writes:
| ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2094 Registered: 10-2004  |
I am boycotting Disney and ABC if these lies are shown. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 383 Registered: 3-2006  |
*Another* 9/11 dramatization? And the point would be...? It's ridiculous to see this horrible event continually used as a means of emotional and political manipulation. I won't be watching it. The "select distribution" is pathetic in how obvious it is. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5755 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here's Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the Bush White House:
| ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7844 Registered: 10-2001 |
It's ashame libs are being so defensive about this.. I mean everyone knows Clinton did jack squat despite the repeated attacks against America. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2096 Registered: 10-2004 |
Tell ABC what you think - send personal note here | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7846 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 386 Registered: 3-2006 |
It's a bigger shame that you actually can't respond to the point and instead have to resort to your default one-two punch tactic of an off-topic claim followed by a ridiculous image. Instead of attempting to derail the thread, how can you intelligently respond to the claims made above? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2097 Registered: 10-2004 |
Cryberry is happy that the film will be shown so that the 'propaganda can be catapulted' as his hero Bush would say. Interpreting factual occurances with a particular spin is one thing, but claiming to be a 'docudrama' and then manufacturing falsehoods that will be believed by millions is just plain wrong. Poisonberry is happy because the docudrama also shows Bush to be a heroic figure instead of the simian like moron he appeared to be while reading childrens stories as America was under attack. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1903 Registered: 9-2004  |
And what was the SHRUB doing while we were being attacked on 9/11?  reading "The Pet Goat" | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7847 Registered: 10-2001 |
libs..  Out of touch, out of tune, out of time. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5756 Registered: 5-2001 |
If everybody knows Clinton did jack squat, why is it necessary to make stuff up? The truth ought to be enough, no? But of course it isn't, and that's why they reflexively fall back on lies. | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 157 Registered: 9-2002 |
cons.. Out of touch, out of tune, out of time. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1349 Registered: 2-2004 |
Well, the good that can come out of this is that this should finally put to rest the "liberal media" myth. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1023 Registered: 1-2006 |
I thought Clinton got in trouble because he was too in touch. jd | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7848 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5758 Registered: 5-2001 |
(c) 1998. Talk about your pre-9/11 mindset. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 387 Registered: 3-2006 |
Let's try this again: It's a bigger shame that you actually can't respond to the point and instead have to resort to your default one-two punch tactic of an off-topic claim followed by a ridiculous image. Instead of attempting to derail the thread, how can you intelligently respond to the claims made above? Or was that indeed the extent of what you can offer? By the way, your last cartoon made your earlier taunt of "Out of touch, out of tune, out of time" act as a boomerang. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1796 Registered: 8-2004  |
This is a non issue. Sandy Berger could have easily stolen a copy if he wanted one. All he needed was over the calf socks. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5759 Registered: 5-2001 |
I was just waiting for a Sandy Berger cheap shot. Sorry, it's irrelevant to the larger question here. Take your toys elsewhere. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 386 Registered: 1-2006 |
The best 9/11 film I've seen is called, On Native Soil, based on the 9/11 Commission Report. The website is http://www.911report.com/, but it is widely available. It's worth seeing, no matter what your political slant. Cheers | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1493 Registered: 2-2004 |
I love this. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3919 Registered: 3-2004  |
The right-wing, "silent majority" has lost. Now we will witness the horrible behavior of their death pangs. They will twist, hide the evidence, and bite, deny and scream, and don't get in their way or show them up, because they'll sting like h***. Word to the wise... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1495 Registered: 2-2004 |
At least wait until after the election to say we lost. Then again, patience and self control isn't a liberal trait. I'll add this to my post election thread. Thanks tulip. And please keep reading Foj's posts. They will only heighten your deep sense of disappointment. I love this. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3920 Registered: 3-2004 |
 The political view expressed in the previous post: In other words, talk about naive... | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5861 Registered: 8-2003 |
Project37 -- I did a quick search and came up with this, though it's not related to the missed shot on the ground by the CIA. Kean was quoted as basically saying there's a scene that is used to dramatize some missed opportunities. Perhaps this one was included in that catch-all. Certainly you Michael Moore fans can appreciate that, especially when coupled with the fact that it's aim is accurate. No "Halliburton" or "Big Oil" or other nefarious conspiracies. Just simple failure by Clinton. It was that effective law enforcement mind-set that got in the way at the time. The same thinking is behind the idea of scrapping the NSA program that intercepts foreign communications, among other efforts of the left. Fair amount of paralysis at the end too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61251 -2001Oct2 U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01 The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries. The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.......... | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2099 Registered: 10-2004 |
cjc - since I am not willing to do the work to refute your bullsht I can grant you that the Clinton administration did not get him. The Clinton administration was handcuffed by the republican congress that was certainly openly hostile and in favor of his impeachment. The contract with america crowd has to this day broken that contract time and again by showing themselves to be nothing but immoral authoritarian power grabbers. The end game is very simple. Bush was the president on 9/11. Bush had many early warnings about bin Laden and foreigners trying to learn to fly pre 9/11. Bush failed America then. He failed America again when he attacked Iraq. He failed America by not pursuing bin Ladin with a tenacity and desire that certainly would have brought bin Laden the death and vestal virgins that he believes he is promised. Anyone who is still supporting this president and this administration is absolutely and without second thought no supporter of America. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 389 Registered: 3-2006 |
cjc, I posted this on another thread, but it seems relevant here. Please explain how the (current) President's sentiments can be justified/rationalized against the brush of lethargy that you are painting the (former) President with: March 13, 2002, just over six months after 9/11: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Also, to my original point, this is the third time I am asking for justification regarding: -ABC has given advance copies to Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers, but refused to give copies to Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright. -"...how much they've gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks." -"Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no...it's sheer fantasy." Posting cartoons as a response is cute, but it only highlights that there's no real explanation for quietly embellishing facts for the sake of drama while withholding the material from the actual subjects. And for the record, I'm not a Michael Moore fan. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1027 Registered: 1-2006 |
Mullah Mohammad, that Afghanie guy, was in Predator sites, and military command in Florida was required to authorize the kill. They refused. That was a few days after 9/11. Then, again, if you read Bin Laden, the Man Who Declared War Upon America, you would learn that the Sudan government offered up for our consumption in 1996, one Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Clinton dropped his jaw, pulled up his pants, and refused the hospitality. But, the higher responsibility lies with CIA and FBI incompetence, from the 70's onwards. Congress failed us, by permitting those agencies to fail us. jd | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 203 Registered: 2-2006 |
Wow, Joel I'm speechless, what do you mean? You lost me. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2044 Registered: 10-2005  |
Holy Moley- Michael Moore puts out an entire movie on 9/11 full of PROVEN distortions and misleading dialogue and you lefties have nothing to say? But now this movie comes out and you are outraged over the lies? Un Fing believable. This daily "liberal outrage" is such a pathetic joke and getting old. -SLK | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 204 Registered: 2-2006 |
"Michael Moore puts out an entire movie on 9/11 full of PROVEN distortions" I've got something to say. What were the distortions and who PROVED them as such? I would have said a little more, but there are low growing fruits out there with thin skin, and tiny seeds. Red. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5866 Registered: 8-2003 |
At the time he said that, Bush must have believed that Osama wasn't as effective in the command structure of Al Qada as he used to be. Not to say he wouldn't take a shot at him if he had them -- regardless of any courtroom difficulties that might be encountered. Didn't want to give Osama the satisfaction of thinking he was possessed with him? And I'll take a stab at the other stuff -- I posted in another thread the response of the (one-time) highly regarded Tom Kean that the film takes a number of failed opportunities and dramatically lumps them together in some sort of scene/episode to speak for all of them. I only know what I've read. Giving it to Limbaugh, bloggers and not Clinton et al? Probably didn't want Clinton interfering with his freedom of artistic expression by jumping ugly with his buddies at the networks? The parties that got it could do more to spread the word on it in a marketing fashion than Clinton could. Just guessing here. | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 158 Registered: 9-2002 |
Here's a few of the misinterpretations of the mini series: * Richard Clarke -- the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News -- describes a key scene in "The Path to 9/11" as "180 degrees from what happened." In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen." And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful." * Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times. * The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief "Path to 9/11" scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had "frequent opportunities in the '90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so." * ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report.This is a picture of bias -- a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 205 Registered: 2-2006 |
ABC station's in the biggest markets are pretty much all O&O's. That is, Disney/ABC owns the stations themselves. So they're not really affiliates and they have no independent choice whether to air the movie. Apparently, at least New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly and Houston are all covered by Disney. Do you live in a media market with an ABC channel that isn't directly owned by Disney? from another site | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7850 Registered: 10-2001 |
Libs listening to Richard "at war with himself Clarke" once again. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html libs. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5761 Registered: 5-2001 |
Why are you posting a link to an article dated March 2004, and implying that it's something new? | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7852 Registered: 10-2001 |
It's not new. Clarke has long been discredited. It's amazing that libs are trying once again to rally around his b.s. This time so they can cry about a movie. libs. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5764 Registered: 5-2001 |
Clarke is only discredited in the eyes of Bush-worshippers, whose religion forbids them from disobeying the talking points. |
