Fat Fuck and Farenheit 9/11 Shut Out at Oscars

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
You have to love this. Even Academy voters know what a POS film 9/11 was. First the brillo faced Jabba the Hutt costs the Democrats the election, now he's shut out of all categories for an Academy Award. There is justice after all for this fat fucking freak. Sorry guys, not even the liberal sludge that makes up academy voters could stomach giving this fat ass any credit for anything.

Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.

Choke on that you Moore lovers and add this to the column of most popular votes ever for a President, enlarged majority for the Senate, enlarged majority for the House and oh.... Michael Moore shut out from getting one stinking nomination for an Academy Award. You liberal losers have nothing to show for that $1-2 billion in filth you spent in 2004 and it's fucking hysterical.

Sorry loser, your 15 minutes has expired.

Link
 
5...4...3...2...1...There it is. I was counting on you to post this because it means absolutely nothing. He kept it out of the Best Documentary category in hopes of a Best Pic nod. It was always a long shot. So he gambled and lost. Big deal. This doesn't prove the movie is a pack of lies like you would have us all believe.
 
Ah, the "most popular votes ever" bit. You know, that really sounds stupid, when I can also say, with equal accuracy, that Bush also got the most votes against him of any sitting president in the history of the entire universe.

You know what's even *more* hysterical than Moore not getting a non in Best Picture? That the worst the right wing nutcases have ever been able to say about the film is that Moore is fat. Not that it was a lie, like the anti-Kerry pieces that were out there, but that Moore's fat. Nice work!

seppo
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You have to love this. Even Academy voters know what a POS film 9/11 was. First the brillo faced Jabba the Hutt costs the Democrats the election, now he's shut out of all categories for an Academy Award. There is justice after all for this fat shaq-fuing freak. Sorry guys, not even the liberal sludge that makes up academy voters could stomach giving this fat ass any credit for anything.

Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.

Choke on that you Moore lovers and add this to the column of most popular votes ever for a President, enlarged majority for the Senate, enlarged majority for the House and oh.... Michael Moore shut out from getting one stinking nomination for an Academy Award. You liberal losers have nothing to show for that $1-2 billion in filth you spent in 2004 and it's shaq-fuing hysterical.

Sorry loser, your 15 minutes has expired.

Link[/quote]

you are so filled with hate, I always wonder if you had a bad childhood or something. You attack Moore, you attack the academy, you attack liberals. These people arent you enemy, they love america as much as republicans, just in different ways. Its your type of thinking that cause bipartisanism. Because a movie does not get an award has nothing to do with the integrity of the film, there might be better movies this year.
 
Moore did not let the film run in the category that it fit in. It would be like the directors of "the matrix" refused to let it be considered an action movie.

Though I wonder how much influence farenheit had, it may have had an influence but just not enough. The swift boat guys had an influence, farenheit probably did as well, just not enough.

Personally I did not like farenheit 9/11, unlike bowling for columbine it was not even funny (a few scenese being the exception). I'm not really even a supporter of moore, but I'd like to keep him around to counter the likes of limbaugh, in short he's useful. Though if you're saying moore has nothing to show for it, I'm sure his bank account would prove otherwise.

Though, I'd like to point out, for all the hatred and whining you say liberals spew, you're doing even more. And, on top of that you won, so there isn't even anything to complain about.
 
it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.[/quote]

Exactly.
 
It's tough to argue with F9/11 because a lot of what is presented IS true. However, it's often not the whole truth, and is edited in such a way that so that the viewer comes with away with certain implications. Ethics aside, it's a great way to present one's view. People who agree with the implied argument or whatnot in the first place will not see any inconsistency, and will in fact feel their POV is being reinforced. People who disagree with the implications will argue based on what they came away with, while the presenter can defend himself/herself with "ah, but I didn't ACTUALLY say that." The unspoken half of that statement being "...but that IS what I meant." Moore has used that technique since Roger & Me.

Personally, I would consider F9/11 to be an editorial, not a documentary.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.[/quote]

Ding Ding! You get a cookie!

How many times until the people see the truth about his bullshit films? EVERYTHING he says and does is a lie. It's like him coming out and saying that he is skiny, would you fools believe that too? It goes against common sense, which most here seem not to have, but because Micheal Moore said it, it has to be true!
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='MrFriday18']it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.[/quote]

Ding Ding! You get a cookie!

How many times until the people see the truth about his bullshit films? EVERYTHING he says and does is a lie. It's like him coming out and saying that he is skiny, would you fools believe that too? It goes against common sense, which most here seem not to have, but because Micheal Moore said it, it has to be true![/quote]

Replace Micheal Moore with Bush and you pretty much summed up Republicans.
 
When did Bush lie? About the Iraq war? Because if that's what you are going to use for your bullshit "lies" then you need some help.

EVERY country on Earth thought Iraq was a threat, France, Germany, Russia, China, they all had info saying he was a threat. The difference was France was friends with Suddam, and had an oil deal, Germany will never again support a war, they are still ashamed of the major ones, and Russia had a oil deal.

Clinton lied about his sex life "Oh that's his business". No it's not just his fucking business, it's mine. He's the president and went on the fucking TV saying that he didn't do something he did. That means he is a lieing sack of shit like all the other presidents out there.

They lie, they all lie, we went to war in Kosavo to stop fighting that has been taking plac ethere for thousands of years. Clinton didn't get UN approval, he just did his own damn thing to make a bigger news story than his sex life.

And please, call me a republican wacko like you do with all the other people that disagree with you. They will see just how big of a dumbass you are.

And then there is this...

"The Oscar ceremony will be held on February 29 in Los Angeles."
 
A few for you to ponder..

'I am not friends with Kenneth Lay'

"we were attacked for our freedom"

"over a million jobs were lost on 9/11"

"No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft--fly US aircraft--into buildings full of innocent people."

""We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

"The reason we are where we are, in terms of the deficit, is because we went through a recession, we were attacked, and we're fighting a war."1


"Iraq kick out the inspectors"

""We found the weapons of mass destruction."

The actual cost of medicad

The actual cost of the war.

"Reimported Drugs from Cananda are unsafe"

"We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."

Sure all presidents lie (except George to some folks) but that is not my point. My point is you hold Michael Moore a 100% truth standard and don't even raise one question about Bush. That is sad and lazy.

by the way there is a HUGE difference between seeing Saddam as a potential threat that is countered by a lot of evidence to the contrary and what Bushdid- only listening to things which told him Saddam was bad. The first is a question seeking an answer and the second is an answer seeking a question. I mean the fact that they had meeting on how to market the war shoud tell you what questionable footing they were on.
 
EVERY country on Earth thought Iraq was a threat, France, Germany, Russia, China, they all had info saying he was a threat. The difference was France was friends with Suddam, and had an oil deal, Germany will never again support a war, they are still ashamed of the major ones, and Russia had a oil deal.


Ok so EVERYONE but you know the UN weapon inspectors whos job it was to know this stuff. Again what evidence Bush put out that was true?


Clinton lied about his sex life "Oh that's his business". No it's not just his shaq-fuing business, it's mine. He's the president and went on the shaq-fuing TV saying that he didn't do something he did. That means he is a lieing sack of shit like all the other presidents out there.

What 6 years ago? He apologized his wife forgave him, give it up and get a life.

They lie, they all lie, we went to war in Kosavo to stop fighting that has been taking plac ethere for thousands of years. Clinton didn't get UN approval, he just did his own damn thing to make a bigger news story than his sex life.

He had NATO, and I didnt know they still made "wag the dog" dumbasses anymore. "Sending cruise missiles after Bin laden? Pssssshhh who cares hes just trying to distract from the real buissness about his penis".

And please, call me a republican wacko like you do with all the other people that disagree with you. They will see just how big of a dumbass you are.

Seriously if you believe W and his buddies were truthful about the Iraq war then well then you need the help buddy.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='MrFriday18']it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.[/quote]

Ding Ding! You get a cookie!

How many times until the people see the truth about his bullshit films? EVERYTHING he says and does is a lie. It's like him coming out and saying that he is skiny, would you fools believe that too? It goes against common sense, which most here seem not to have, but because Micheal Moore said it, it has to be true![/quote]

Hey we actually agreed upon something! :D
 
[quote name='Msut77']Seriously if you believe W and his buddies were truthful about the Iraq war then well then you need the help buddy.[/quote]

Guess I am one of those people who need help, will you pay for my shrink Msut77
 
Condi Rice, 2004: And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/


Family Guy, 2000: But fans DID have a complaint about the first box set, and it was all about an edit to the episode "The Road to Rhode Island". This story originally aired in May 2000, about a year-and-a-half before the tragic events of 9/11. In the episode, Brian goes to pick up Stewie from visiting his grandparents in Palm Springs, and they miss their flight home due to Brian's drunkeness. During their car-stealing, train-hopping, hitch-hiking trip back to Rhode Island, they stop by Austin, TX so that Brian can deal with his mother-abandonment issues (synopsis courtesy of TVTome.com). Stated to be MacFarlane's favorite episode, TVTome says it well when they report that "this episode was cut after the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center to remove a scene involving Osama Bin Ladin [sic] sneaking weapons aboard an aircraft by copying Stewie's use of singing show-tunes to distract baggage handlers when his weapon-filled suitcases go through the X-Ray machine." The cut version is what was included on the first DVD release, much to the chagrin of completist fans (ourselves included).
http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=2365


I guess the Bush administration should've had Seth McFarlane on its cabinet instead of Condi Rice. :roll:
 
Your "lies" aren't even lies, half of them are true and the other half is normal buget bullshit.

Msut77 I'll give you the same advice as Friday, if what you say makes sense, you wouldn't look like such an ass.

Wow the UN people didn't find the weapons! WOW! Because EVERYONE thought they had moveable trucks with them, and would hide weapons in odd places the UN wouldn't look.

Saying the "UN could find weapons" is like saying a blind deaf person could. The UN is useless, and recent events have shown that.

Why did Clinton bomb the biuldings that Bin Laden was in? Oh yeah to cover his ass. He sent 50 missles in, if he wasn't so damn busy getting head while "working" he would have done more shit. That's the truth, I'm sorry you can't admit the truth. 50 cruise missles is nothing, and Clinton, should could have and should have done more.

Bush lies, Clinton lies, they are all fucking liars.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']it wasnt a documentry becuase it was filled with lies, and it did not get nominated becuase it was a shit movie.[/quote]

No it didn't get nominated because it would've been an insult to all kinds of filmmakers that bust their asses and take MONTHS upon MONTHS making a film, getting takes from actors and actresses and editing it. What did Moore do? He just took a bunch of stock news footage, edited it with his voice on it and went to chat with some Senators. Consider all this and the effort it took.
I enjoyed F911 but I must admit there are some inconsistencies, like with Bush being portrayed as the idiot AND this conniving villain.
Anyway, to David85, you're kidding me right? You ACTUALLY considered Iraq a direct threat at the time? We should've kept going after Osama or WHOEVER did 9-11 including if some of Saudi Arabia was accountable.
You're going to give CLINTON shit about his sex bit?! I'm fucking disgusted with you. So he lied about SEX! Get over it. I would've lied about it too to keep from embarrassing my wife. That shit was personal and was NO ONE'S business to know except between Bill and Hillary. Besides who's to say the marriage wasn't political and that maybe Hillary didn't even fucking care about it. Would I be disgusted if I found out it was political? Yes but I know it happens unforgivable as it is. Am I mad about what Clinton did? Yes but I'd prefer him over Bush.
What else here? Oh yeah to Republicans, you hate Clinton because the only shit you can throw at him and stick is this affair crap. I never hear ya'll bitch about him selling nuclear weapons to the Chinese or giving China MFTN status, two things that are valid to bitch about when talking about Clinton.
 
1) I am a liberal. Very liberal (not neccesarily a Democrat However)
2) Michael Moore is a jackass.
3) I hate George W. Bush
4) I'm not going to touch this topic with a 10 foot pole.
however
5) OP your avatar is Ronald Reagan.
RONALD REAGAN
RONNIE fuckING REAGAN

The fact that you obviously are a fan of ol' Ronnie, means that any arguement about the merits of the movie would be 100% futile. So I will not attempt to argue with you.
 
Why did Clinton bomb the biuldings that Bin Laden was in? Oh yeah to cover his ass. 50 cruise missles is nothing, and Clinton, should could have and should have done more.

Why so you could cry wag the dog more? And that is still more than W did until 9/11. W preffered to dick around with Star Wars missile defense instead.

And again you are saying "everyone knew" except the people whos job it was to know, and they (meaning Blix and Ritter) were right. W didnt put out any real evidence when people pointed the laughability of the case made W and company all they could say was that doubters hated America.

Makes you wonder.


MrFriday18

If you voted for Kerry (you old enough to vote yet?) we might have had universal healthcare and you could get access to badly needed mental health services.
 
It is sad that I have to educate you

A lie is

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives

The Ken Lay affair, the "attack for our freedom" comment, the "million jobs lost" on 9/11, the reason fo the defict, the "no one could have imagined..." comment, "Irag kick out the inspectors", " we found WMDs" , reimportation of drugs and "we will not pass on..." All qualify by the first definition, the rest by the #2.

"half are true and half are budget bs'?? (WTF?). Wait I thought everyone lies?

And the thing about Clinton is EVERYONE admits he lied. Even his most staunch supporters unlike the Repubs who cover their ears and sing "la la la la Bush is great la la la"
 
[quote name='Msut77']MrFriday18

If you voted for Kerry (you old enough to vote yet?) we might have had universal healthcare and you could get access to badly needed mental health services.[/quote]

To answer your question, no i am not of age to vote, but most teenagers have no intrest in politics like i do. Also i have no need for mental health services i was joking, and you Msut77 are in need of mental health services if you voted for Kerry and to think universal health care was possible b/c if it was possible it would cost a ton for the goverment and people could not make their own medical desicions,this is why the President was against it sinse it wouldn't allow people their full medical rights.
 
Are you in middle school yet?

So Star Wars and friggin laser beams and endless war a-ok. Universal healthcare like in any number of first world countries no? How would it limit your medical choices there are different ways of instituting universal healthcare and im almost positive Kerrys plan allowed for most.

Unless you are talking about the full medical right to not being covered.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18'] and people could not make their own medical desicions,this is why the President was against it sinse it wouldn't allow people their full medical rights.[/quote]

boy, being a kid on your parents insurance really skews your view. The fact is HMO and other insurance companies already don't allow people to make their own medical decisions. Unless you are very very rich and can pay out of pocket.

Bush was against it because he would rather big insurance companies make money rather than alleviate the burden (by government $$) of insurance cost on small businesses.

FYI- Kerry's plan wasn't universal health care but merely government paid major medical insurance which was a fantastic idea.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Why did Clinton bomb the biuldings that Bin Laden was in? Oh yeah to cover his ass. 50 cruise missles is nothing, and Clinton, should could have and should have done more.

Why so you could cry wag the dog more? And that is still more than W did until 9/11. W preffered to dick around with Star Wars missile defense instead.

And again you are saying "everyone knew" except the people whos job it was to know, and they (meaning Blix and Ritter) were right. W didnt put out any real evidence when people pointed the laughability of the case made W and company all they could say was that doubters hated America.

Makes you wonder.
[/quote]

Clinton was a big pussy. That's all I have to say. :!:

Also President Bush was in office 235 days prior to 9/11 and Bill Clinton did crap when he was in office apox 2,920 days and did almost zip concerning national security. Now why would President Bush have any reason to go after terrorist in his first 8 and half months in office? Bill Clinton should have went after terrorism after the 93' WTC bombing,98' two US embassy bombed in Africa, and 2000 the USS Cole was hit my a shoulder mounted missile. And what did Clinton do jack fucking shit. If Clinton would have responded to terrorism in the 1990's and put pressure on Saddam then we may have avoided two wars. Not saying 9/11 would have been prevented but the planto carry out such an attack would not have been realistic if Clinton went after AL-Quida in the 1990's. Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him and we told Sudan to send him to Saudi Arabia which denied him. Where did he end up the safe-haven of Afghanistan. Just one of the many mistakes of the Clinton Administration.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='MrFriday18'] and people could not make their own medical desicions,this is why the President was against it sinse it wouldn't allow people their full medical rights.[/quote]

boy, being a kid on your parents insurance really skews your view. The fact is HMO and other insurance companies already don't allow people to make their own medical decisions. Unless you are very very rich and can pay out of pocket. [/quote]

Well i knew that considering we only go to certain doctors that take my parents health insurance company. Also IMO goverment health care would be worse maybe cheaper, but not as good. I stand corrected.

Also Im in High School im a sophmore.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']

Well i knew that considering we only go to certain doctors that take my parents health insurance company. Also IMO goverment health care would be worse maybe cheaper, but not as good. I stand corrected.

Also Im in High School im a sophmore.[/quote]

Universal healthcare seems to work pretty well in Japan where I came from. Personal income tax for middle to low income households is lower in Japan than U.S. As you may know, the quality of healthcare in Japan is up there among the top nations. I can choose any hospital I want to go because I don’t have to worry about which insurances the hospital carries. I miss being able to just walk in any hospital and get treated right away without worrying about the payment. When I was a student in a U.S. grad school, I had to reject an ambulance someone called for me when I passed out in school because I could not afford to pay for it! IMHO, something so fundamental should be available to everyone regardless of their wealth.
 
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm


http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html
 
Well when i whento to Niagra Falls i did not enjoy paying almost 15% on goverment and health care taxes, but hell i guess it would be cheaper but doubt it will ever be instatuted here in the US. That means an average game which say is $50 would know cost around $58 and for a person who rarely gets sick that would suck.
 
Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him

According to Mansoor Ijiaz who, for whoring this story was awarded with a job at fox news channel.

I think it was debunked ill find alink. Either way he had no authority to broker a deal anyway.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him

According to Mansoor Ijiaz who, for whoring this story was awarded with a job at fox news channel.

I think it was debunked ill find alink. Either way he had no authority to broker a deal anyway.[/quote]

Yeah I heard it was debunked or questionable. Someone said to go to www.newsmax.com/ but we all know what a Conservaitive bastion that is.
 
I'm glad.

Moore is an opportunist, and a sleazy one at that. whenever he is "for" something you know that he is using it to profit somehow. Now if only the liberals would realize how he has played them for suckers with his movies.

Also half truths, which are what his movies all consist of, are worth nothing and turn into lies when you look at the whole message.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I'm glad.

Moore is an opportunist, and a sleazy one at that. whenever he is "for" something you know that he is using it to profit somehow. Now if only the liberals would realize how he has played them for suckers with his movies.

Also half truths, which are what his movies all consist of, are worth nothing and turn into lies when you look at the whole message.[/quote]

Like there aren't Conservatives who are opportunists? All I seem to hear on Talk Radio are Conservative talk show hosts advertising for some product here or there.
I could argue that some of you are fools, maybe not suckers, for following Bush lockstep when he has done nothing to alleviate the Federal Deficit, only made it worse. Right there there's one complaint Fiscal Conservatives can lodge against Bush.
What's the whole message? In "Bowling For Columbine" Moore laid out there was something wrong with this country you couldn't blame on the media or at least movies and violent video games.
If you hate Moore I can only imagine what you think of Amy Goodman.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him

According to Mansoor Ijiaz who, for whoring this story was awarded with a job at fox news channel.

I think it was debunked ill find alink. Either way he had no authority to broker a deal anyway.[/quote]

Didnt I post that? But conserning Mansoor Ijiaz he was one of the negotiators in 1996 conserning UBL, and his turnover. He claims the Clinton Admin. blocked him from basically doing his job, and the reason Clinton didn't want UBL is b/c it would have brought on new tensions in the middle east.(Hey that really worked). Also with Ijiaz corresponding job on Fox news hes barely even on, but he is one of those guys who can get into the mind of UBL.
 
Clinton didnt block anything, what Ijiaz said was that Clinton didnt take him up on his offer. Meanwhile Mansoor is an American with no you know authority to broker a deal with Sudan.
 
[quote name='Sarang01'][quote name='Msut77']Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him

According to Mansoor Ijiaz who, for whoring this story was awarded with a job at fox news channel.

I think it was debunked ill find alink. Either way he had no authority to broker a deal anyway.[/quote]

Yeah I heard it was debunked or questionable. Someone said to go to www.newsmax.com/ but we all know what a Conservaitive bastion that is.[/quote]

Yes, this was debunked by the 9/11 commision. It is in their report.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18'][quote name='Msut77']Why did Clinton bomb the biuldings that Bin Laden was in? Oh yeah to cover his ass. 50 cruise missles is nothing, and Clinton, should could have and should have done more.

Why so you could cry wag the dog more? And that is still more than W did until 9/11. W preffered to dick around with Star Wars missile defense instead.

And again you are saying "everyone knew" except the people whos job it was to know, and they (meaning Blix and Ritter) were right. W didnt put out any real evidence when people pointed the laughability of the case made W and company all they could say was that doubters hated America.

Makes you wonder.
[/quote]


Clinton was a big pussy. That's all I have to say. :!:

Also President Bush was in office 235 days prior to 9/11 and Bill Clinton did crap when he was in office apox 2,920 days and did almost zip concerning national security. Now why would President Bush have any reason to go after terrorist in his first 8 and half months in office? Bill Clinton should have went after terrorism after the 93' WTC bombing,98' two US embassy bombed in Africa, and 2000 the USS Cole was hit my a shoulder mounted missile. And what did Clinton do jack shaq-fuing shit. If Clinton would have responded to terrorism in the 1990's and put pressure on Saddam then we may have avoided two wars. Not saying 9/11 would have been prevented but the planto carry out such an attack would not have been realistic if Clinton went after AL-Quida in the 1990's. Also to prove my point even more Sudan in 1996 offered to give us bin Laden and we refused to take him and we told Sudan to send him to Saudi Arabia which denied him. Where did he end up the safe-haven of Afghanistan. Just one of the many mistakes of the Clinton Administration.[/quote]

Before you go spouting off that Clinton did nothing, maybe you should look into what he actually did. I suppose stopping the millenium bombings was nothing. Again, as I mention above, the 9/11 commission said that there is no evidence that Bin laden was offered to Clinton.
What does puttng pressure on Saddam have to do with Al-queda? There was no link between Sadaam and Al-Queda.
All the people who were involved with the first World Trade center bombing are sitting in jail. The first WTC bombing happend when Clinton was 9 weeks into office. You never heard ANYONE blaming Bush Sr about it. Yet, 9/11 happend 9 months into Bush's term, and repubs were quickly blaming Clinton, even though Bush did nothing. Bush was the one who got the PDB saying Bin Laden determined to strike in US, not Clinton.
You mention the Cole, yet don't seem to realize that the Cole investigation ended in Feb 2001. The results said that Al-queda was behind it. Let's see, who was president then? Oh yeah, it was Bush. What was his response? NOTHING.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It is amazing that you guys hold a filmmaker to a higher standard than your own president.[/quote]

2nd'd
 
[quote name='David85']Bush lies, Clinton lies, they are all shaq-fuing liars.[/quote]

Ah, reflexive moral equivalence. The last bastion of the truly brain-dead moron.

seppo
 
Before you go spouting off that Clinton did nothing, maybe you should look into what he actually did. I suppose stopping the millenium bombings was nothing. Again, as I mention above, the 9/11 commission said that there is no evidence that Bin laden was offered to Clinton.
What does puttng pressure on Saddam have to do with Al-queda? There was no link between Sadaam and Al-Queda.
All the people who were involved with the first World Trade center bombing are sitting in jail. The first WTC bombing happend when Clinton was 9 weeks into office. You never heard ANYONE blaming Bush Sr about it. Yet, 9/11 happend 9 months into Bush's term, and repubs were quickly blaming Clinton, even though Bush did nothing. Bush was the one who got the PDB saying Bin Laden determined to strike in US, not Clinton.
You mention the Cole, yet don't seem to realize that the Cole investigation ended in Feb 2001. The results said that Al-queda was behind it. Let's see, who was president then? Oh yeah, it was Bush. What was his response? NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Ya you can say Clinton was in office 9 weeks when the WTC was bombed, but he never whent after Islamic terrorists on numerous accasions, that is my point. His decision not to do so was because he did not want to disrupt the peace process in the Middle East. I guess Clinton cared more about others opinions of us then the country he was running. Also when President Bush got the memo that bin Laden was determined to strike the US the memo was not specific at all. So what was the president supose to do beef up security, put armor around everything in just a couple of months, give me a break! And also where have you been for the last 37 months aren't we fighting terrorism? that would be a response the USS cole bombing buddy.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']
Before you go spouting off that Clinton did nothing, maybe you should look into what he actually did. I suppose stopping the millenium bombings was nothing. Again, as I mention above, the 9/11 commission said that there is no evidence that Bin laden was offered to Clinton.
What does puttng pressure on Saddam have to do with Al-queda? There was no link between Sadaam and Al-Queda.
All the people who were involved with the first World Trade center bombing are sitting in jail. The first WTC bombing happend when Clinton was 9 weeks into office. You never heard ANYONE blaming Bush Sr about it. Yet, 9/11 happend 9 months into Bush's term, and repubs were quickly blaming Clinton, even though Bush did nothing. Bush was the one who got the PDB saying Bin Laden determined to strike in US, not Clinton.
You mention the Cole, yet don't seem to realize that the Cole investigation ended in Feb 2001. The results said that Al-queda was behind it. Let's see, who was president then? Oh yeah, it was Bush. What was his response? NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Ya you can say Clinton was in office 9 weeks when the WTC was bombed, but he never whent after Islamic terrorists on numerous accasions, that is my point. His decision not to do so was because he did not want to disrupt the peace process in the Middle East. I guess Clinton cared more about others opinions of us then the country he was running. Also when President Bush got the memo that bin Laden was determined to strike the US the memo was not specific at all. So what was the president supose to do beef up security, put armor around everything in just a couple of months, give me a break! And also where have you been for the last 37 months aren't we fighting terrorism? that would be a response the USS cole bombing buddy.[/quote]

So you're telling me Bush needed a time and place of when Bin Laden was going to strike in order to do something? Bush gets a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US", and he stays on vacation. That's doing something.
So you're also telling me that Bush's response to the Cole attack was to invade Iraq? Please. Get real. Bush's response to the Cole attack was to do nothing.
Clinton gets a memo saying that Al-queda is planning an attack on the millenium and what does he do? He holds daily meetings on Al-queda and puts the entire system on high alert. What is the result? Bombings thwarted. Maybe if Bush had done the same thing the info that was sitting around in various agencies would have been put together and maybe 9/11 would have been stopped. I'm not saying that it would have, but it does fall within the realm of possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top