| Author | Message | ||
     Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7853 Registered: 10-2001 |
Please Tom, Enough with the partisian pot shots.. Clarke's attitude is laughable if not for the fact that he was right there front and center during all the AL Qaeda attacks against American interests. His response? http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 392 Registered: 3-2006  |
 | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2102 Registered: 10-2004  |
Incredibly thick and sour these cryberries | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1797 Registered: 8-2004  |
Great week for whining. First Rumsfeld's speech, then Bush's speech, now some TV show. Looks like Bubba's upset too. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_da mning_9_11_movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_correspondent.htm | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 393 Registered: 3-2006 |
T-Bone, did you actually read the article that you just linked to? It confirms that the 9/11 Commission report (on which this movie claims to be based) echoes Clinton's concerns with the deliberate distortion of facts. How is pointing out a legitimate inconsistency "whining"? There's a contingent here that can never respond to these sorts of questions without meaningless namecalling or trying to dismiss it as "whining." Answer the question. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1798 Registered: 8-2004 |
The 9-11 Report was not the only one source for this drama. It is not a documentary. They also used media reports and changed some things for dramatic effect. Here is one example from the article. The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape. But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India." So that means that the Pentagon and not the State Department tipped off Pakistan. It was still part of the Clinton Administration.} Calling dramatic inconsistencies Truly Despicable is whining. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 395 Registered: 3-2006 |
So, according to the 9/11 Commission, this was a military decision and not a foreign affairs decision. Yet the movie "dramatizes" it as the opposite. Please explain 1) why this was necessary, and 2) why the people being inaccurately portrayed are wrong to complain about it. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5765 Registered: 5-2001 |
Now Straw is saying that Clarke responded via a op-ed piece in the Washington Times. Pathetic. Doing a word count on one document to try and glean what the Clinton foreign policy was. Just right for someone who can barely speak a coherent sentence (someone like Bush). Doing a word count without even trying to understand the nature of the document, just right for illiterates. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2105 Registered: 10-2004 |
It makes for a great propaganda film for authoritarian followers. They perceive the great enemy of America to be Clinton and the great hero to be Bush. The film is of the docudrama style to attain maximum effect among those Americans who think Fox News is real. Playing straight to the ignorant republican base it makes for a wonderful election trick. Get the people to see that the last democratic administration was weak, helpless and paralyzed by al Qaeda and bin Laden and how wonderful the republican administration is in fighting back against terror. No, its not whining it is being upset with lying. If falsehoods are being spread that cast democrats as inept that can affect the election in November then it is not whining, it is protesting and informing to be aware of what is going on. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7854 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Liberals can effect change and attitudes by repeating key phrases over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter what phrase you pick, just make sure it slams conservatives then pass it on to other liberals. Before you know it people will believe it - won't matter if it's true or not because people will hear it so much that they will assume it is true without questioning it. Some favorites that have worked are "Bush lied to the American People" and "Republicans are racists". Remember, repeat, repeat, repeat - the more repetition, the more effective it will be." | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 398 Registered: 3-2006 |
You really have nothing to say, do you? | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 159 Registered: 9-2002 |
"Conservatives can effect change and attitudes by repeating key phrases over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter what phrase you pick, just make sure it slams conservatives then pass it on to other conservatives. Before you know it people will believe it - won't matter if it's true or not because people will hear it so much that they will assume it is true without questioning it. Some favorites that have worked are "It's all Clinton's Fault" and "Iraq is tied to 911". Remember, repeat, repeat, repeat - the more repetition, the more effective it will be." | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7855 Registered: 10-2001 |
Uhh, Kramer bad news. Conservatives have never tied Iraq to 911. Liberals have attempted to get their own to believe this nonsense by repeating, repeating, repeating the b.s. See how you fell into your own trap? libs.  | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2051 Registered: 10-2005  |
Project 37 says: "It confirms that the 9/11 Commission report (on which this movie claims to be based) echoes Clinton's concerns with the deliberate distortion of facts." The 9/11 Commission Report states that Bubba was "deeply concerned" about Bin Laden....Oooooooooo... If he was so concerned about him why didn't he do anything about it? He only had 8 years to figure something out. Not doing anything about something and then dishing it off to your successor is not exactly a prime example of true leadership skills. Clinton should consider himself lucky the 9/11 CR was so lenient on him. -SLK | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 788 Registered: 1-2004 |
it is an interesting trick how the right can say the left was paralyzed by al queda, but then they themselves ignored the warnings about bin laden to attack america. And then the other trick of them saying that our intelligence was so weak, but then relying on that intelligence to go in and start a war with iraq. All so tricky. Tricky dicky. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1799 Registered: 8-2004 |
The movie uses several sources to come up with the script for this movie. The 9-11 commission report is not the only source of information. There are those who would say that the commission report is incomplete. They also used media reports just like the PDB from Aug 2001 . It is a freakin' movie. They took poetic license. Get over it. Could you imagine the ratings on all those Kennedy movies if they relied on the Warren Commission Report. | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 399 Registered: 3-2006 |
Straw - Coming from someone whose "debating skills" are comprised largely of cartoons and catch-phrases, that "comeback" means absolutely nothing. SLK - let's try it again: March 13, 2002, just over six months after 9/11: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
That didn't take long. Now, on the eve of the 5 year anniversary, bin Laden is suddenly relevant again? Somebody can't make up their mind?
Taking a new job means that you're responsible for addressing the present workload. Spending a significant portion of your first year on vacation and ignoring reports titled, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack US" is not exactly a prime example of true leadership skills either. T-Bone - So basically, you can't answer either question. Nicely done. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2084 Registered: 7-2004  |
"If he was so concerned about him why didn't he do anything about it? He only had 8 years to figure something out." Bush has now had five years to do something about Bin Laden, and has succeeded so far in allowing our supposed ally, Pakistan, let him hide in their mountains forever. This after Bin Laden attacked us on Bush's watch, and after Bush promised to get him dead or alive. Bush is a loser, and a disgrace. Worst president ever. I normally wouldn't care about a piece-of-•••• work of fiction like this movie except that all the little scroti in this country are going to watch it and believe it. Why? Because it's on television, and most of the little scroti here are unfortunately very intellectually lazy, and none too bright. Like our president. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5807 Registered: 10-1999  |
SLK wrote: GWB said: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060321-4.html Hey, maybe you do have a point, there.  | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 515 Registered: 8-2004 |
Nohero:  | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2106 Registered: 10-2004 |
The revisionists on this board love to blame Clinton for all the evils of the world. Look, they say, "Clinton had the chance to get bin Laden but didnt so whatever bin Laden did after that failure is all his fault" ---- as if that has any basis in reality. All of a sudden Bill Clintons administration was responsible for 9/11. That is pure evil genious on the part of the revisionists. No blame for falling asleep at the switch, for not paying attention to the prior administrations warnings, for not paying attention to their own intelligence people and intelligence lifers with no political affiliations warning them of the problem. Blameless. Except in reality Clinton did pay attention, especially after the first WTC bombing. All the bombing suspects were arrested, tried and convicted. The millenium bomb plot was thwarted and the administration was very much involved in tracking down and finding these threats to our country. It was the Bush administration that fell down on the job. ON VACATION for crying out loud. No meetings were held to discuss terrorism until after 9/11. The gall of these revisionists to point at Clinton and paint his administration as weak and apathetic to the problem while pointing at Lewinsky as a reason is so totally wrongheaded. Think about this - if the Lewinsky affair caused the presidency to become ineffective, then wasnt it the republican congress that really made a big deal about a Clinton marital impropriety that caused it? Its stupid in the extreme. 9/11 is a Bush responsibility. His watch, his failure. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2085 Registered: 7-2004 |
Good one, Nohero. Wasn't there a time on this board when at least some right-wing nutcases actually knew how defend this administration with some thought and decided interest, however unadmirably? I feel like the Bush apologists are just getting lazier. It feels that way on the national stage, too. Anyone else notice? | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 160 Registered: 9-2002 |
August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1800 Registered: 8-2004 |
What is there to defend.Bush's three biggest challenges , Iraq, Al Qaeda, and the recession were all problems that Bubba passed on. The inspectors left in 1997 , so Iraq went unchecked for years. Al Qaeda flourished in the 1990's and planning for 9-11 started in 1998. The stock market started to tank and the dot com boomm busted in 2000. " Sorry, Georgie, could you handle this for me" | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5766 Registered: 5-2001 |
Conservatives have never tied Iraq to 9/11?
From the blogosphere:
Others
And so on... | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1909 Registered: 9-2004  |
To Nohero | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1801 Registered: 8-2004 |
All true statements. Good work Nohero.( sorry meant Tom) Now please try to find the statement that Iraq was involved in the Sept 11 attacks. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5767 Registered: 5-2001 |
I just posted ten of them. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1802 Registered: 8-2004 |
tom, I am having trouble finding the quote that says Iraq attacked us on Sept 11. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5808 Registered: 10-1999 |
Will you accept a letter from President Bush to Congress, dated March 18, 2003, stating that the Iraq invasion "is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2052 Registered: 10-2005 |
No Hero, Nice try but not quite. Bubba knew about Bin Laden, did jack about him and then passed the problem along to Dubya. Dubya did something about about it and realizes that the WOT is not set to end at the end of the next Presidential Inaguration (sp). Despite what you think, inquring about Bubba's lack of response to the bin laden/terrorism issue is both fair and legitimate. -SLK | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1803 Registered: 8-2004 |
Nohero. Not even close. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2445 Registered: 8-2003  |
If Iraq wasn't so tragic, that statement would be funny. Iraq is Bush's greatest challenge not because weapons inspectors left in 1997 (you may remember that they did in fact return in '02), but because he himself ordered a military invasion of Iraq that has turned disastrous. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2053 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hello? Iraq is indirectly related to 9/11 in a much bigger scheme entitled the WOT. Are you people being intentionally obtuse? -SLK | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2446 Registered: 8-2003 |
What's the use of debating if you guys are going to deny that a sentence written in plain English says what it in fact says? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2108 Registered: 10-2004 |
You know T-Bone is not a stupid guy. He knows exactly what he is saying because there was no quote out there that said that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks or that al Qaeda is an organization that Saddam directly controls. But he also knows that in every one of the statements tom posted the inference is there. It is exactly why many millions of Americans thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and why millions of them still do. The republicans conflate and influence this belief by using 9/11 and Iraq or al Qaeda and Iraq every time they discuss terrorism and the WOT. He knows but he is being intentionally obtuse. Its ok T-Bone, we know. I really dont understand why you would not want to look at the situation realistically and critically but thats your prerogative. The country is finally catching on and paying attention, and that is ultimately what will save us from tyranny. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5811 Registered: 10-1999 |
Oh, and on the issue of whether the Clinton Administration was pursuing Bin Laden, and whether the danger from Al Qaeda was made clear to the incoming Bush Administration, we call to the stand - Dr. Condoleezza Rice: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing9/rice_statement.pdf Now, we may disagree over how much the new Administration actually paid attention to these warnings, or even whether there may have been even more briefings and information given to the new Administration than they were willing to admit. However, it's pretty clear that they were handed an ongoing effort. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2087 Registered: 7-2004 |
"There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started, and we must not let them. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." —George W. Bush | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5768 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw sez no conservative ever linked 9/11 and Iraq. I respond with ten instances of conservatives using 9/11 and Iraq in the same paragraph, frequently the same sentence. Why would you put two thoughts into the same sentence if not to link them in some way? It almost seems like a postulate of grammar. Santorum said, this last weekend, "We were attacked on 9/11. We responded by going after the terrorists in Iraq." Why would we respond this way if not attacked by Iraq or the terrorists in Iraq? If in fact Iraq was not in on 9/11 then Santorum's statement is a non-sequitur. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5769 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw sez no conservative ever linked 9/11 and Iraq. I respond with ten instances of conservatives using 9/11 and Iraq in the same paragraph, frequently the same sentence. Why would you put two thoughts into the same sentence if not to link them in some way? It almost seems like a postulate of grammar. It certainly is the rule for a paragraph, which is supposed to be one thought. Santorum said, this last weekend, "We were attacked on 9/11. We responded by going after the terrorists in Iraq." Why would we respond this way if not attacked by Iraq or the terrorists in Iraq? If in fact Iraq was not in on 9/11 then Santorum's statement is a non-sequitur. |
