I watched the ABC docudrama "Path to 9/11". It attempts to delve into the minds and motives of the terrorists themselves, which hasn't been done before. As for the accuracy and Blame Game, well, I'll leave that for this open thread.
UPDATE: I watched the end of Part 2 and it was quite compelling and heartbreaking. Any last comments?
The Clinton administration got beat up pretty bad. I can see why they wanted to the show pulled. They implied there were some key wasted opportunties. Drama or reality?
I'd say it's pretty easy to second-guess policy decisions like those made by Clinton's cabinet. Especially in hind-sight. And this was not an administration known for stellar foreign policy right? (One of my favorite scenes was the actual media clip of Slick Willy: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman....Monican Lewinsky!" -- that clip should be aired annually just to keep it fresh.)
The thing I took from this drama was the intensity of these radical Muslems. If even 10% of that is true (and I think we all know it is), how in the world can anyone in their right mind not acknowledge that we are indeed in the midst of a war against these nutjobs?? Sure, debate Iraq all you want and troop levels and MWD's etc. But the show really reinforced just what level of hatred these "religious" fanatics have for Americans. (And Christians for that matter...)
I'm sure a movie originated by an extremist evangelical group, written by a friend of Rush Limbaugh, and broadcast gratis by a company that's cashed in substantially as a result of the GOP's laxity on media consolidation (not to mention the company whose theme park Bush told everyone to visit to show their patriotism after 9/11) would not distort the record of the Clinton presidency. So I'm sure it was entirely accurate.
Every person involved in that supposed missed opportunity has said it is completely and utterly false. ABC tried to pass their trash off as the 'official true story,' but then later decided that they'd have to let everyone know that parts were 'fictionalized.' Which is it?
The video clip that should be run every year is Bush under the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. That has a lot more relevance than Clinton lying about a BJ.
Lazlo, Julie - let it go.
I am as partisan as anyone on this board, and its hard to get too upset with Clinton. The fight with terrorists was under the radar until 9/11. Even today, can you imagine the outrage if airport security arrested 5 Arabs at the gate, and grounded all planes for the day, due to some suspected plots?
I'm with RSW - I find it hard to criticize either Clinton or GWB for their anti-terror policies pre-9/11. It was a different world.
It is useful, however, to remember how blind we all were to the growing threat, to the pattern of attacks, to the web being weaved.
"The video clip that should be run every year is Bush under the ”ËœMission Accomplished' banner. That has a lot more relevance than Clinton lying about a BJ."
Relevance? To what? Lying under oath? Bush's banner was about a specific action -- not the entire war. You can spin that however you like. Slick Willy however lied under oath and disgraced the office. The fact that he lied about a sexual trist, is an adulterer, and has few morals is besides the fact.
RSW and Gordy are correct. No one is pinning the 9/11 tragedy on any one president.
"RSW and Gordy are correct. No one is pinning the 9/11 tragedy on any one president."
I must quibble. 9/11 wasn't a "tragedy." It was an attack.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Well, I didn't have time to watch this spawn of Rush Limbaugh and Mickey Mouse.
But I'm sure it would have been good for a laugh.
Check out the melodrama in this scene, in which Sandy Berger engages in a totatlly fictional conversation that goes something like thi (in case you haven't time to watch it on-line):
Scene: Hazy washington control room, shakey camera:
Soldier [from a walkie-talkie]: "Mr Beger, I'm standing in Bin Laden's tent, with my gun on his forehead? Should I shoot him?"
Berger: "Umm. Hmmm. Well . . . it's hard to say now isn't it?"
Soldier: "Sir, I've got him right here! You can see his infra-red picture on the tv in your office! Shall I shoot him sir!"
Berger [furrowing his brow]: "Gee, well . . . umm . . "
Woman's voice: "What the heck! Sir! Shall we shoot him sir! You are the National Security advisor! Omygod, what the hell? Shall we shoot him RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE sir?!"
Berger: "We'll I think we'd better have a meeting, or a focus group of some kind."
Woman's voice: "Oh my God."
Berger: "uhh, what?"
Woman's voice [sinking with dread]: "I've figured it out?"
Berger: "Figured out what? How to avoid acting like a man making this tough decision?"
Woman [shaking her head]: "No, Sir. But I see now what's going on. You're a . . . you're just a . . .well, Sir, you're a Liberal."
Berger [weeping and shaking]: "Oh God, it's true. [incoherent blubbering . . .]
Woman: "Soldier, call of the mission. Looks like, for now, we've got liberals in charge. And we'd better order up some bodybags for when the terrorists come to the homeland."
Looks like ABC won't be invited to the Clinton Library for the next party - wow, a nerve has been struck.
Loper - you should go work for Michael Moore. You seem to have a real gift at his sort of movie making....
i didn't start watching until about 9 pm .. in the first few mniutes, I saw, the show dwelled on Monica -- which has what to do with Osama? -- then had a scene every much like the above transcript, with the clintonians waffling while the big star, harvey keitel, got angrier. clinton doesn't order an atrtack. then he does. when he does, somebody points out that he's just trying to distract us from monica.
wow, that was fair. he's a wimp when he doesn't attack and a manipulator when he does
anon,
I wasn't going to watch it until you criticized it. But now, I guess, I'll have to try and find a copy.
"wow, that was fair. he's a wimp when he doesn't attack and a manipulator when he does"
Forget fair. Is it true or not?
is it true or not? you're asking whether it's true that no matter which option clinton chooses, he's evil? take a logic course
"is it true or not? you're asking whether it's true that no matter which option clinton chooses, he's evil? take a logic course"
That's funny. The most common liberal talking points, often echoed by you, is that President Bush is either stupid or evil.
So which is it? Or do you need to take a logic course?
No, I'm asking is it true/plausible/probable/chance in 1000 that what is presented in the movie is true:
that when they had a chance to get Osama, the Clinton administration waffled...and in the midst of his sex-scapades, Clinton bombed an asprin factory to divert national attention.
It's a simple question, really.
i've never said bush is evil or stupid.
ABC has been taken over by Right Wing Christians then the Right Wing group holding ABC hostage ran a disclaimer saying the story may fictional?
First 9/11 was not the first time the trade towers were attacked. Clinton did have an opportunity to take out OBL and did not. Would that have stopped an attack on the Twin Towers if Clinton had taken OBL out or would other terrorists have carried out the attack who knows. The only question now is do we really want people in power who are afraid or their idealism dictates that when the tough questions come their not prepared to give the order to properly defend this country.
The only question now is do we really want people in power who are afraid or their idealism dictates that when the tough questions come their not prepared to give the order to properly defend this country.
Is this a joke? Are you to have us believe that Bush, Inc. are properly defending the country? Tora Bora, anyone? Checked on the status of the Taliban lately? Any illogical rationalizations for the Iraq debacle you'd like to spin for us?
President Bush said some very true and accurate things last week. This is indeed a war against totalitarians. It is a fight between radical ideologies. It is a dangerous war that will last a long time, but a war that demands our full attention and capablitiies.
The problem is that Bush isn't approaching the war that way. We need more troops in Iraq, or we need to leave. Bush's solution? Uh ... stay the course?
We need more troops in Afghanistan, and we need to take out the Taliban once and for all. Bush's solution? Uh ... stay the course?
We need Pakistan to criminalize Al Qaeda. No pressure is being applied. We need to talk directly to Iran and North Korea to contain the threats, we are leaving that up to the Europeans and the Chinese.
Sorry, man but the idea that Bush is making us safer is frickin' ridiculous. Our prestige in the world is at an ALL-TIME low. If Bush, Inc. declared tomorrow that they have intelligence proving that Iran has a nuke and is ready to use it 55% of Americans would think he is lying. The rest of the world would laugh, even if it is true.
Do we want people in power who are afraid? That's who we have in power. We need some people who are smart.
Yeesh.
"We need to talk directly to Iran and North Korea to contain the threats, we are leaving that up to the Europeans and the Chinese."
Wait, I thought it was bad when Bush did it all by himself, didn't assemble a coalition - you know, acted like a cowboy. Now he is getting others involved and that is bad?
I am saying yes he is defending this country much better then the Dem's ever would. What do hear from the "Dem's Cut and run" "bring the troops home now" before the job is done. You say we need more troops Bush asked for more money to fight the war but all we hear from Durbin and company is no. You can't have it both ways the war against terror has to be faught. You can't undermine Bush and say he doing a bad job but not say how your going to do a better one. Either help or get out of the way.
I bet W gets a nice boost after this next week or so. I watched the TV show and I suddenly remembered the leadership skills that Clinton demonstrated throughout his presidency while our prestige world-wide was high. I then started to wonder and doubt - not the facts of the show - but about his leadership culture. Our current pres will not deviate from his course because of polls and this is something most of us felt (and appreciated) when we elected him two times. Watching clinton saying in an interview "They should just tell the truth" was very, very amusing.
Anyone watch that movie or read the book?
"Our prestige in the world is at an ALL-TIME low."
Based on what? On whom? On what report? The world still looks to American for help, support, aid, defense, and leadership in virtually every arena. And we're there. Yes, we have our problems and sure, we can improve. But please don't speak for the world community because you find fault with Bush. That rant is getting stale after six years.
"If Bush, Inc. declared tomorrow that they have intelligence proving that Iran has a nuke and is ready to use it 55% of Americans would think he is lying."
Yea, because 100% of the Dems would call him a liar, demand more evidence, and introduce impeachment proceedings.
This is what happens when a leader demonstrates that will not stay the course.
This is what happens when UN resolutions don't mean anything. But I guess prestige is more important.
run4cvrlib, why do you keep saying the Dems wouldn't do as good a job in Iraq?
A Dem president fought and won WWI (Wilson), fought and won WWII (Roosevelt and Truman) won the Korean War (Truman) and a Republican, Nixon, quit on the Vietnam War, so we "lost" that one.
Seems Dems win wars, Republicans don't.
You are missing the Cold War.
We didn't win the Korean War.
George Bush #1 was president when we won the 1st Gulf War. How can you miss that?
I find this whole situation ironic. If you recall the hatchet job done in "The Reagans," Democrats like Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and their far-left ilk chastised Cinemax for shoveling the mini-series off to one of their lesser viewed subsidiaries. Democrats also flocked to theaters for films like Fahreinheit 9/11, Out Fauxed, and Wal-Mart: The Cost of Low Prices. They were, of course, all slanderous and rilled with factually incorrect material. They, meanwhile, have a cow over something the slightest bit critical of them. Where are the Democrats crying foul over that perverse Death of a President movie?
The Cold War wasn't a war, it was political ideology.
We didn't win the Korean War? Isn't South Korea still free?
GW1, or "41" was prez during a few-week-long action that established "no fly zones" and left Hussein in power.
Shoot, you may as well include Reagan and the "War to Liberate Granada".
If you include the Cold War, then include the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on disco, the war on...
I meant WAR. Ongoing, real, month after month, batlleground, WAR.
Presitige for capitulation. I say the Dem's wouldn't do as good a job in Iraq because they keep saying they want to leave Iraq. Last time I checked you have to actually have troops in the country to fight the war.
If you're going to argue that we won Korea because South Korea is free, then we're looking pretty good in Iraq, right?
"July 27
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. North and South Korea did sign a non-aggression treaty in 1991.
A total of 29,557 service members (all services) died in battle, or from battle-related injuries, during the Korean War. 4184 died from non-combat causes in the Korean theater. 92,934 were wounded in action seriously enough to be evacuated. (This number does not include those lightly wounded who were treated at battalion/regimental aid stations and returned to duty.) 7,245 service members became Prisoners-of-War. (DPMO stats as of 04/17/2001)"
Dems won WORLD Wars. The Korean War.
R's cut and run. Vietnam. Iraq 1.
R's have the history of quitting.
D's have the history of staying, fighting, and winning.
Nice try.
That was a long time ago. Things change that's not what their saying now read the papers.
You better try again.
"R's have the history of quitting.
D's have the history of staying, fighting, and winning."
Rs have a history of supporting their Democratic Presidents during wartime.
Ds have a history of undermining domestic support during war under Republican Presidents.
If you make the claim that GOP Presidents are quitters (not something I agree with, btw), then don't you have to ask why they quit? And ask yourself who, once again, is agitating for America to quit its current War?
Hmmmmm.
Dems won the world wars, eh? I think my grandfather is going to rise up from the grave and remind you how those wars were won. So did the dems invent the internet as well?
I also think a Republican named Dwight David Eisenhower may have had something to do with winning World War II.
If the Dems run Truman in 08, I'll vote for him.
RSW hits it on the head.
Missing: if you want to compare Carter and Clinton with Truman/Roosevelt, you are really lost.
I think "Missing" is missing.
Comments by Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar under Presidents Clinton and Bush, and current ABC News consultant:
As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama, "The Path to 9-11," I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted.
Sadly, ABC's Entertainment Division hired a production company and screen writer who were apparently unqualified to deal with this historically important subject matter. That error appears to have been compounded by the failure of some of the docudrama's consultants to insure that the account was accurate. Some of the most outrageous scenes were removed after a recent senior level review. What remains, however, is not the true story as told by the 9-11 Commission.
Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screen play are more than the result of dramatization and time compression. There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11.
The exact opposite is true. From the President, to all of his White House team, and NSC Principals (Lake, Berger, Albright, Tenet, Reno) there was a common fixation with terrorism, al qaeda, and bin Ladin. The President approved every counter-terrorism operation presented to him, including many that CIA proved unable or unwilling to implement. He increased counter-terrorism spending by 400% and initiated the first homeland security program in forty years. Even though the US had taken relatively few casualties from al qaeda at the time, the President repeatedly authorized the use of lethal force against bin Ladin and his deputies and personally requested the US military to develop plans for "commando operations" against
them. Even though he knew the timing of an attack aimed at killing bin Ladin would be labeled by critics as a political diversion, Clinton decided to follow the advice of his national security team and pay the price politically.
Who was president when we won WWI? Wilson. Democrat.
Who was president when we won WWII? Truman. Democrat.
Who was president when we won in Korea? Truman. Demcrat.
Who was president when we pulled out of Vietnam? Nixon. Republican.
Who was president when we pulled out of Iraq? GHW Bush. Republican.
Do we see a pattern?
Blame democrats in Congress if it makes the Republican Prez quit, then laud republicans in Congress if it's makes a Democrat Prez a winner.
The prez makes the decisions. He is the "decider".
The public wins wars. The Prez listens to the public. The Prez decides if soldiers go fight. The prez decides how much money he wants from Congress and how to provide materiel to the troops. For Iraq, the budgets are supported by most dems. Not all dems, but not all republicans, either.
Some presidents get what they want and fight. And win. They are called Democrats. Some presidents mishandle wars. They cut and run. They are called republicans.
Democrat presidents have a better track record winning wars than republican presidents do.
That is why I will support a democrat for president. Not to cut and run, but to win.
I want to win this war. I do not want another republican for president. Republicans have a history. They cut and run.
Apparently I should not vote for a republican because he/she would cut and run. Thank you for enlightening me. Can you imagine - Mrs. Clinton, did you or did you not cut an run?
Missing something--the Democrat Presidents you named placed the interests of this country ahead of appeasing everyone else. President Truman could have cared less if the PC police didn't like him. If the Democrats ran anyone as strong and patriotic as harry Truman, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Instead, they choose to run people like John "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry and try to run Lieberman out of the party because he supports the war. If Kerry had been in office when we were attacked, he would have invited Bin Laden to the White House for tea and talks.
Wilson. Very Liberal. Easterner. College President. Started League of Nations, forerunner of United Nations.
Roosevelt. Very Liberal. Easterner. Started the entire welfare system.
Truman. Liberal, but pragmatic. An ok guy. If he could be on the ballot he would get 95% today.
Nixon. Very conservative. Paranoid. Wage and price controls. Crooked.
GHW Bush. Eastern blueblood. Not an effective hawk. Let Colin Powell run the war.
Carter and Clinton: not war-time presidents, any more than Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan, all had minor skirmishes, in the grand scheme of things. No comparison possible of Carter/Clinton to Roosevelt/Truman, or Wilson.
Solid Democrat war-time presidents win. Republican war-time Presidents cut and run.
And that's the truth, any way you want to spin it, that's what the history books will say 300 hundred years from now.
You seem to think all Democrats are pacifists. You are wrong.
But paste your labels where you want.
To paraphrase George Santayana, "Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it".
"That is why I will support a democrat for president. Not to cut and run, but to win."
Which Democrat will you be supporting in 2008 that hasn't already promised to cut and run?
"You seem to think all Democrats are pacifists. You are wrong."
I think the most active and vocal rank-and-file members of the Democrat Party are pacificsts. Actually, no, I don't. I think the most active and vocal rank-and-file members of the Democrat Party want us to lose in Iraq because they hate George Bush. If Bill Clinton were President, they'd be hawks.
Democrats have a history of undermining Republican Presidents while America is at war.
Republicans have a history of standing behind Democrat Presidents while America is at war.
It's like this. This is true.
When I was a kid I hated getting in fights. I would try to talk my way out of them, I would consider the cost of just giving in, etc. But, occasionally, fights happened. When they did, I beat the crap out if the other kid. Every time. Never lost. Just lucky, I guess. Or maybe resolve. I wouldn't stop until I had thoroughly whipped him, bloodied him, sent him running home crying.
That is, to me, Iraq. We never should have gone in, but once in, we have to beat the crap out of them.
A lot of kids would try to fight by starting a little, and then running away, or slinking away. HISTORY SHOWS that democrat presidents have been the former, avoid the fight, then win it, and republican presidents have been the latter, jump in fights, and then run away.
I don't want the fight, but I'll finish it. Unlike Republican presidents. That's why I will never ever vote for a Republican as wartime president. It's just plain "weakness" for the finish.
Since McKinley (Spanish American), or Lincoln, in the 19th century, not one Republican president has finished the fight. Sad.
Which Democrat will you be supporting in 2008 that hasn't already promised to cut and run?
Perhaps he's talking about the GWOT, and not Iraq? The problem here is the conservatives keep equating Democratic disgust over the debacle in Iraq (ie: "cut and run" - thank you, Mr. Rove) with Democratic thinking over the way the GWOT is being fought. Just because Dems can see that Iraq has actually made us less safe, and want to contain that damage, doesn't mean they want to pack their tent and quit the war.
They just want to fight smarter, against enemies who actually pose a threat.
The Democrats supported Bush, Inc.'s excursion into Afghanistan, and overwhelmingly threw their support behind the Iraq mission because they believed the lies coming from the WH and CIA. Once the truth became known, that there are no WMD, and Saddam was not in any way connected with Qaeda or 9/11, the Democrats began talking about withdrawal, usually phased.
But more importantly is the idea that we have little sway in the international community because of this mess. Democrats have said for years that the Administration needs to get other western countries involved in Iraq. Either we can't do that because they no longer trust us, or we won't do that because we are too busy politicizing 9/11 for the '04 and '06 elections.
Either way the whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Just remember the Republican motto: Be afraid. Be very afraid, until November 7, then forget about it for two more years.
Pinky-Missing-- No- you say you want to fight but you fall back to Bush isn't doing it right or some other excuse to cut and run. All that other stuff is just smoke just like Vietnam you bleeding heart Lib's just want out. Murtha has already started calling the troops murders and Durbin has called are troops Nazis when is the Baby killer label coming? The Dem's in congress and the MSM are undermining the war so they can blame Bush so they can have an issue to attack the republicans in November. The Democrat Presidents you listed would have had the editors for the New York Times arrested for making those secrets public. The public both Dem's/Repub's would have rioted and burned the papers in the streets. Your right there was a time that the Democrat leadership thought that the security of the American people was more important then partisan politics but it seems no more. I would say there are many brave soldiers Dem's and Republicans fighting with out question maybe the leaders of their party should start fighting for them.
I had not heard about the GOP motto. It's to bad Clinton wasn't a little more worried about what was happening in the world 3000 people could be alive today but you ignore that but if I was a Dem I would want to too. The bad taste well I will stay away from that.
How can you blame Clinton for 9/11?
It happened on Bush's watch. The history books will say, "On Sept 11, 2001, while Bush was President, terrorists got through security and toppled the WTC".
Would you blame the retired Chief of Police for the bank robbery that happened today right under the nose of the present Chief of Police?
The bad taste well I will stay away from that.
It's big of you to demonstrate some restraint. :roll:
Yeesh.
Oh man-Lets not go over old territory here but if he would of done his job and killed or captured Osama we might not of had 9/11.
Not a problem pinky.
We did have 9/11.
On Bush's watch.
The only President to blame is Bush.
If he had done his job, we would have had good enough security.
And 3000 people wouldn't have died.
And maybe if REAGAN hadn't joined IRAN and funded the mujahidin in Afghanistan the taliban wouldn't have risen to power and allowed Osama Bin Laden to plot 9/11.
It goes back way before Clinton. It goes back to Reagan. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was seen as an opportunity for us to heckle the USSR. We just decided to sleep with the devil, and, along with Iran, although for vastly different reasons, provided funds and arms to the mujahidin.
When you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
So if you want to lay blame at the start, blame Reagan. Clinton should have done something, but it was GW who allowed the terrorists to hit the WTC.
Get your facts straight, run4cvrlib. Spinning lies is tacky.
Spinner right now I don't want to hear your BS. Turn on the TV and watch the truth.
This thread is a testament to how poorly America has done since the attacks. Not a speck of logic anywhere, but lots of partisan attacks. Well done, fools.
wenalway why didn't you stop us sooner.
Lazlo, Julie - let it go.
RSW, if ABC had decided to broadcast "Farenheit 9/11" on September 11, 2004, gratis and commercial-free, and called it "entertainment," would you be willing to "let it go?" Based on everything I've read, this "Path to 9/11" is no less biased and no less worthy of the title "propaganda." At the very least, ABC's costs should be reported as a RNC contribution; at best, ABC should be required to issue a public retraction and pay reparations to the individuals and corporations who were slandered by their falsifications. For example, the broadcast portrayed American Airlines overriding computer warnings to allow the hijackers to board the planes. In the 9/11 report, and in reality, this was done by U. S. Airways. Oops. I guess accuracy doesn't count when there are Democrats to smear, eh?
Lazlo-your kidding right
# run4cvrlib Says:
September 11th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Spinner right now I don't want to hear your BS. Turn on the TV and watch the truth.
Oh wow. That's really really funny. "Trust the MSM!"
You crack me up.
Hey, Disney is doing a docu-drama on Finding Nemo next week. Tape it, runny.
No, I'm not--there were media reports today that American Airlines is considering legal action.
It wasn't meant to be funny are you saying 9/11 didn't happen spinner. Do you want me to act like you are; going of the deep end like you do to me? You sound like a 3 year old look at spinner he doesn't believe 9/11 happened hahaha. Try and grow up.
There are media reports that there are Martians. There is no comparison Fahrenheit 9/11 and the movie that was just on. Who knows why American would want to sue.
"Comments by Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar under Presidents Clinton and Bush, and current ABC News consultant"
When you are in the thick of an organization and involved in all the nitty-gritty details, it's easy to poke holes in someone else's interpretation of those events. It's the overall picture that the maker's of Path were trying to portray. Richard Clark was obviously a major player, but other's views and interpretations were also incorporated. From what I've read, Richard Clark's objections to Path amount to splitting hairs, not disputing the actual results of decisions made. Add to that the fact that he's now part of MSM and gets his stature therein from his criticism of the Bush Administration.
There is plenty of blame (or responsibility) to go around with every administration for every issue you want to bring up. The Clinton apologists are transparently myopic but that's their MO.
But I like what others have said previously. The blame goes to the evil, Islamofascists for their warped version of Islam. If Americans would get back that short-lived unity and work against the real culprits, we would show the world what we're really made of. But wait, it's an election year. Forget that naive idea.
As I wrote earlier: "I find it hard to criticize either Clinton or GWB for their anti-terror policies pre-9/11. It was a different world."
I got my Link-TV. America, What A Country!!!!!
Of course 9/11 happened.
Maybe just not eactly how ABC portrayed events leading up to it.
ABC is the MSM, you know, believe it ... or not.
Lest we forget, let this day be forever imprinted in our collective souls to understand the inhumanity that we as a world can inflict upon one another. Blame no one unless you can blame all. Blame all and find yourself as part of process to the change. All men have responsiblity in this horrific event. Some by action, some by inaction but all have responsibility. Pray for those who had no choice, but pray.
I blame Osama, Clinton was the only president after the attack on the World Trade Center in 93 who had the opportunity to take him out and did not. We should remember that because who is president makes a difference.
Because right now there are a lot of democrats in congress trying to tie the hands of the President who is currently trying to fight the same terrorists groups that blew up those building.
Anonymous,
That was beautifully said.
American Airlines Latest to Hit ABC's 9/11 Film -- Legal Action to Follow? (Editor and Publisher)
ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots (The Nation)
Michael Moore is a left-wing propagandist and Cyrus Nowrasteh is a right-wing propagandist. Farenheit 9/11 distorts the record to blame Bush for everything. Path to 911 distorts the record to blame Clinton for everything. If you don't think there's a comparison, you haven't read any of the reviews or the bipartisan objections to the fabrications in Path to 9/11.
At least Cyrus calls his a docu-drama, while Michael Moore claims documentary. What I find amusing is that recently I heard someone say (can't remember whom) that the Right has Rush Limbaugh/talk radio, the Left has the documentary. Air America doesn't come close to the influence that "Path to 9/11" has had.
"Path to 911 distorts the record to blame Clinton for everything."
Lazlo - did you even watch the thing? Clinton is mentioned rarely... It's more a slam on policies and unorganization. The final screens slam the current administration for not following through on the 9/11 Commission findings.
Quit trying to compare the MMoore trash that is filled with hatred of Bush with the docu-drama of "Path" that's more about Islamofacism than anything.
I defense of Moore, his documentaries usually attack whomever is in office. Think of Bowling for Columbine - the premise of the first third of that film is that the defense industry (Lockheed Martin is located in the same town as Columbine High School) is as much to blame for the culture of violence as Marilyn Manson. Clinton is specifically criticized for bombing the crap out of something (Kosovo?) the same day as the massacre.
Roger and Me takes on corporate (ie: bipartisan) greed in a thorough and moving manner. The Big One, again, singles Clinton out as being a whore to industry.
Farenheit 9/11 is an excellent film. Completely compelling, beautifully made, it presents a point of view that is hard to deny. Moore's companion book, "Will They Trust Us Again?" is one of the best books about the GWOT I have ever read. Bowling for Columbine stands as one of the greatest documentaries ever made, and will be watched by millions for years to come.
To dismiss Michael Moore as a political hack is to completely misunderstand the meaning of the medium in which he works. He is one of the the best documentarians, and visual historians this country has ever seen. Capra might be better, but either way Moore's influence is profound. It's not about Bush, or the tired Coulter-esque delusions about Left and Right. It is about abuse and misuse of power, whether it is Clinton, Bush, or even Carter. Moore doesn't discriminate.
Moore is a hack.
Honestly, I'd hardly expect a more nuanced answer from someone who uses "Run for Cover Liberal!" as a log in. :)
It's "hard to deny" that Michael Moore is a hard-core lefty. The fact that he attacks Clinton just means that Clinton wasn't lefty enough for his taste!
But make no mistake about it, he is a political hack!
I watched the movie "the Path to 9/11" last night and the night before. I thought it was a very accurate depiction of what probably really happened. It brings back the memories to see those towers crumbling, such a tragedy. It's hard to believe that it's been 5 years already. The movie was very emotional, just to see how 9-11 was probably plotted and how it all played out. We also must never forget the lessons we learned on that day. I was in 11th grade in school when I heard the news that the WTC had been hit by airplanes. I remember it as if it were yesterday. I personally didn't know anyone in the WTC or the Pentagon or on United Flight 93 that crashed in PA, but some friends of my family knew some of the victims. I think we are more secure now 5 years later, but there's still a lot of work to be done. I lived in CT when 9-11 happened. I recently moved to OK and there are many people out here too who knew people who died on 9-11-01. It affected the entire nation. I believe the movie "the Path to 9-11" was very accurate though and it was very good.
Victor David Hanson sums it up perfectly in his article "The Path to 9/11--A Postmortem". He points out the glaring hypocracy about who was vocal, Clinton and Co., and who was not, ACLU and academia. He also compares it with Michael Moore's 9/11 that is used as propagana by the Muslim jihadists around the world.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_path_to_911a_postmortem.html
"Believing" it was accurate means nothing. It either was or it wasn't. These blunt truths are obscured in all of the political sabre-rattling and idiotic exchanges of: "You're a lefty! No, you are!" And that's just sad.