The Path to 9/11 Miniseries

[quote name='bmulligan']Never having seen the movie, your position of authority that you "know" everything that actually happened in the movie is false is baseless. I'm guessing you never actually read the 9/11 report. Not only are some of the scenes you describe actual occurances, but they can be corroborated in the memoires of others such as Dick Morris's book "Becuase He Could", Ambrose Evans-Prichard's "Secret Life of Bill Clinton", Buzz Patterson's "Deriliction of Duty," and others.[/quote]

You'll have to forgive me if I don't concede argument because you've cited some books written by people with obvious grudges against Clinton; it's not as if the "Clinton had several opportunities to get bin Laden" lie ceased being told after the publication of the 9/11 report, and many still try to suggest that today; it is no small coincidence that Mansoor Ijaz, the person who "offered OBL on a silver platter to Clinton in Sudan" (I'm certain you know all about that one), who was discredited as an unreliable source and someone with no more connections than a vested interest in US negotiation with Sudan, is now a correspondent at FOX News.

Speaking of artistic license, Bob Woodward's books on the Bush administration are dramatic retellings of occurances based on interviews, documents and supporting witness accounts - just like the script for this mini-series. Yet we don't hear the outrage from the right of Bush being unfairly dramitized in print.
Click to expand...

Pure straw man. Damn near ANY political book published today, whether it's Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin, or Greg Palast, David Corn, or some other liberal, is easily the same thing. You signal out Bob Woodward's book(s?) as if it is an exemplar of this kind of storytelling, but it's the same kind of nonsense coming off of the assembly line. What's your point? No political party/interest has the market cornered on fooling you into thinking that you're so politically adept because you reading some piece of shit book.

Or, perhaps you recall the Regan docu-drama that some conservative groups protested against last year. They felt it unfairly portrayed Reagan as a buffoon, and the left were outraged that anyone would try to step on artistic license and freedom of speech. It seems the goose's sauce is too salty for the gander.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never heard of it. Never at all; I also never, as a matter of fact, mentioned it several times already in this thread, pointing out two things: (1) how delightful it is that the very same people who were outraged by the mere *premise* of the miniseries, *without* having seen it themselves, and demanded that CBS pulled it and threw it onto Showtime on some random night, and I never ever said (2) that it's further influence that the "MSM" is only evil and liberal when it's doing something that conservatives don't like. In this case, unlike CBS, ABC is stanuchly attacking those who criticize this film, and insist they're showing it. So, even though conservatives could get a movie thrown off of public airwaves for pay-cable (and even pay-cable's pay cable!), liberals are assailed by the media for trying to do the same. Without question, of course, the delicious irony of the results of these kinds of scenarios will be lost on you and those who think like you the next time David Gregory looks at George Bush the wrong way, again reifying the "liberal MSM."

And you really think there were no terrorist attacks during Clinton's watch after the first World Trade Center bombing? Go talk to the families of the dead americans in Saudi Arabia, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then ask the families of the dead soldiers on the USS Cole whether of not they think Clinton did a good job of dealing with terrorism against US citizens. And let's not forget the Murrah federal building bombing either, Ace.

Your statement is not only false, but illustrates an irresponsible, and irrational, allegiance to a cause that would dismiss truth even if faced with the choice between it and certain death.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it's false logic; I was merely pointing out that the "we've not been attacked since 9/11, and thus we are safe" nonsense is just a bunch of pablum.

Let yours be the first time that I'd ever heard the Murrah building being used in the discussion of modern terrorism; too frequently, people try to dismiss it as an anomaly, failing to realize that they are subconciously aware and supportive of actions against a group of people (the loosely-based "Muslim") that they do not want placed on themselves. But, hey, I'm getting ahead.
 
Nobody has ever said we are safe now. President Bush hasn't said it. He has said we are safer than we were on 9/11 but not once has he said we are safe.

Mykevermin may i ask if you are a college professor?
 
Well, schuer, that's really getting too deep into semantics as to be having a useful argument at that point.

As for your question...kinda. I'm a few months away from "ABD" status (I'll have completed everything but my dissertation towards my PhD, though that's like saying I've done everything but build the Great Wall of China by hand), and I do teach some classes as an "adjunct professor" (non-tenure indentured servitude). Why do you ask?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/09/07/AR2006090701454.html?nav=rss_politics

ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and is a co-executive producer of the film, said in an interview that he recently asked for changes that would address complaints raised by the former aides to President Bill Clinton and that ABC is considering his request.
Click to expand...

Reality -1
Schuerm26- 0
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Just wondering. Had a thought that you might be so figured i would ask.[/QUOTE]

np. I worry that people think I intermingle my work and my political feelings, and I get really bent out of shape when those accusations fly. I'll certainly use research to inform my political attitudes, but that kind of intermingling just goes in one direction.

Not that you made that assumption...I'm just sayin'.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']here we go folks, its on right now.[/QUOTE]

Eh. I'm worn the fuck out from seven hours of Rollerderby today. Besides, even if it was the most accurate movie made, it's up against The Simpsons season premier and Manning-on-Manning football. I hope nobody watches it.

I'm still appalled that ABC would dare air this piece of garbage within two months of a general election. fuck them, and fuck Disney.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Eh. I'm worn the fuck out from seven hours of Rollerderby today. Besides, even if it was the most accurate movie made, it's up against The Simpsons season premier and Manning-on-Manning football. I hope nobody watches it.

I'm still appalled that ABC would dare air this piece of garbage within two months of a general election. fuck them, and fuck Disney.[/QUOTE]

I'm bored of watching this thing.......... nothing to watch.... I stopped watching the simpsons like 15 years ago.

Im craving for some Sienfield (sp?) right now...damn it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Eh. I'm worn the fuck out from seven hours of Rollerderby today. Besides, even if it was the most accurate movie made, it's up against The Simpsons season premier and Manning-on-Manning football. I hope nobody watches it.

I'm still appalled that ABC would dare air this piece of garbage within two months of a general election. fuck them, and fuck Disney.[/quote]

Were you this appalled when Dan Rather brought out the fake documents, what was it a couple weeks before the elections, in an effort to influence the elections? Or how about When Fahrenheit 9/11 was out spreading lies. Were you appalled then?
 
Did i misunderstand this part, please let me know if i did. They lost out on an informant who knew about the WTC bombing because the Clinton Administration wouldn't pay him $500 per week for the info? Is that what happened at the beginning? I was in and out during that part.
 
It wasn't just Clinton who spoke out against this, alot of people who worked on the show have actually been pretty vocal about the misinformation that is present in this 'docudrama'... But yea, I'd be pretty pissed if people were making up stories about my life and broadcasting it nationwide as the "truth", wouldn't you be?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Yeah don't we wish this was a fairy tale. Now i can see why Clinton wanted it pulled. His administration was incompetent.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he should be impeached. Oh wait, HE'S BEEN OUT OF fuckING OFFICE FOR DAMN NEAR 6 YEARS!

The Right really got themselves a victory in getting this one aired... :roll:[quote name='Metal Boss']It wasn't just Clinton who spoke out against this, alot of people who worked on the show have actually been pretty vocal about the misinformation that is present in this 'docudrama'... But yea, I'd be pretty pissed if people were making up stories about my life and broadcasting it nationwide as the "truth", wouldn't you be?[/QUOTE]

I'd bet Reagan wouldn't have liked it very much either.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yeah, he should be impeached. Oh wait, HE'S BEEN OUT OF fuckING OFFICE FOR DAMN NEAR 6 YEARS!

The Right really got themselves a victory in getting this one aired... :roll:

I'd bet Reagan wouldn't have liked it very much either.[/quote]

I won't disagree with you, but it was on a different scale than this both in the amount of viewers it reached, and in its subject matter.
 
[quote name='schuerm26'] His administration was incompetent.[/QUOTE]

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, 9 months in and he had been warned several times.

All of your bullcrap doesn't change this fact.

You wanna talk incompetence? bring in on motherfucker.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']I won't disagree with you, but it was on a different scale than this both in the amount of viewers it reached, and in its subject matter.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the scale thing was due to CBS being scared and putting it on Showtime instead.

They both portrayed a past president in a somewhat negative way.
 
As lax as the Clinton administration may or may not have been on the issue of terrorism (I don't think it was, and I think the evidence to the contrary is publicly available), nothing can compare the complete ineptitude of the Bush administration in the months leading up to Sept. 11th. From ignoring the warnings of the outgoing administration, to never holding a security briefing on the subject until what? 8/11, to cutting anti-terror funding, to ignoring blatant in your face warnings from the intelligence community, to firing arabic/farsi translators because of their sexual orientation, to treating the White House 'terrorism czar' as a leper, they are the grand champions of 'lax'.

You'll better off getting an idea about the real John O'Neil from this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/
Which paints him as in a pretty favorable light, but also as kind of a screw up within the FBI who had a tendency to turn people off and made more then his fare share of blunders. You can watch the whole thing online. Not having seen the ABC show, I can only wonder how he is portrayed there, by Harvey Keitel as i understand it.

Richard Clarke's book, or even his 9/11 testimony (transcript) (video, about 2/3 down the page) tell a pretty tangled story of action and inaction from both administrations. Personally I prefer the transcript, it's from the whole day and you get a lot of background info from the other speakers. If you watch the video, watch the Rummy one from the previous day, the Tenet testimony and then the Clarke testimony. It becomes pretty clear who the weasels are.

All of which one would come to the conclusion that a lot of the US's anti-terrorism infrastructure before 9/11 was a bureaucratic clusterfvck, with more on the ground action, but also more procedural complications (desire for actual evidence of Bin Laden/alQueda involvement) by the Clinton Administration, and more misdirected focus (Iraq), inaction and near willful ignorance from the Bush administration.

So there's plenty of blame to go around, but the more I read about the writers, producers and the director of this movie the more it sounds like a Dittohead wankfest. I guess the saving grace is that it's up against opening day of the NFL and the first regulation Monday Night Football (a double header!). So they're going to miss their key demo.

On a side note:

I do truly have to wonder though, one of the things I have heard about the movie makes no sense, perhaps someone can clear it up for me:

In one scene just hours before the Clinton Administration tried to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles, Sec. Albright insists on calling the Pakistani's to tell them about the missiles. Doing so allows Bin Laden to catch wind of it and clears out before the attack.

OK, leaving out the fact Albright wasn't the one who thought they should call, I'm to believe a call from the tops of the US gov't to say, the Pakistani ambassador (who called the Pakistani Sec. of State, then Musseriff) somehow leaked to a guy in a broken down, plumbingless, shithole, training camp in the hills of Afghanistan in a matter of hours? I mean, c'mon, we've seen what Afghanistan is like, even under the best of conditions you'd be lucky to get that message through in a week, much less a matter of hours. Not only that, reporters have been to the site, it's full of dead bodies, even today. So bin Laden gets word the cruise missiles are coming and decides to high tail it out of there leaving all his men there? Bullshit. Not to say he'd stay with his men and die, but he'd have brought them with him.

I mean, c'mon, the right likes to say they're supposed to be the pragmatists, what's more likely? A secret that maybe only 10 people on that half of the globe knew of leaked from the presidents office in pakistan to Bin laden in a few hours allowing him to narrowly escape certain death, or he got lucky and just happened to leave before the missiles got there? One certainly makes for better TV, the other, well, it's not as sexy.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Were you this appalled when Dan Rather brought out the fake documents, what was it a couple weeks before the elections, in an effort to influence the elections? Or how about When Fahrenheit 9/11 was out spreading lies. Were you appalled then?[/QUOTE]

Michael Moore wears his ideology on his sleeve, as I've pointed out; moreover, he's more of a selective truth-teller than an outright liar, in the case of this filmmaker. As for Dan Rather, please find the proper person to blame. If you think that Dan Rather wrote his own copy or stories at that point in his career, then you have little idea of how the media functions.

And, judging by your post following the one I'd quoted, it appears the movie has served its purpose; it blurs the lines between reality and fiction, and you already admit you don't know the difference. So, I'm certain that you will simply adapt the occasions on the film to confirm what you already believe: Bush has done an awesome job protecting us from terrorism, and 9/11 is all Clinton's fault. That's a shame, really, since life is more complex than blaming Clinton for one incident that you believe is the sole catalyst for allowing 9/11 to happen (not to mention you don't even know if it's the truth or not).

My recommendation to you? Don't watch this movie. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Then you can be appalled at all the things you want that Clinton did, and be certain that they genuinely happened on his watch. At the same time, you'll be presented with information in the book that the film neglects to show (can you believe that the film does not show the presidential daily briefing Bush and the administration received on August 6th, 2001, titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US"?) that show to you the mountain of evidence that the leadup to 9/11, as well as what followed (well, a smidge of what followed) was the massive dereliction of duty on behalf of the Bush administration.
 
[quote name='usickenme']9/11 happened on Bush's watch, 9 months in and he had been warned several times.

All of your bullcrap doesn't change this fact.

You wanna talk incompetence? bring in on motherfucker.[/quote]

I don't recall anyone saying the Bush Administraion was completely faultless in this. He will get hit pretty hard on tonight's 2 hour part, i'm sure. That doesn't mean Clinton's administration wasn't incompetent.
 
I think 'incompetent' is the wrong word. They seemed to know about the threat, tried to kill or capture Bin Laden on more then one occasion, and had several key people who were vigilant about stopping him. The President had weekly meetings on the topic and it's been reported that while in the car with Bush on the way to the inauguration Clinton warned Bush of the threat saying, "The number one thing you're going to be dealing with is Terrorism."
 
[quote name='schuerm26']He will get hit pretty hard on tonight's 2 hour part, i'm sure.[/QUOTE]

meh..we don't need a faked up mini-series to see the Bush fucked up.
 
I loved all the shaky camera movements, grainy effects, and random zoom used to make it look more real. That, and the acting was GREAT!!!

*hangs himself*
 
[quote name='usickenme']meh..we don't need a faked up mini-series to see the Bush fucked up.[/quote]

your right who have fake news on abc, cbs and nbc already.
 
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015216.php

"The Democrats have gone nuts over the ABC miniseries, The Path to 9/11. But it's a little hard to see why. Maybe it's because Disney and ABC have been reliably pro-Democrat in the past, so the Dems feel betrayed.
Looking at the big picture, though, it's a little hard to see what the Dems are complaining about. I haven't seen the miniseries, but I take it that it doesn't portray the Clinton administration as having taken very effective action against the growing threat from Islamic terrorists. What I don't understand is how the Democrats think they can rewrite history to challenge that characterization.

There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration. To note just a few highlights:


* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.

* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.

* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.

* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.

* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.

* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.

* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.

* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.

* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.

* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.

* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.

* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.

* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.

* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.

* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.

* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.

* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.

* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.

* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit."


Pretty self-explanatory
 
[quote name='schuerm26']There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration.[/QUOTE]

Straw man. Nobody's argued that. The 1993 WTC bombings indicated, if nothing else, that terrorist attacks could and did happen in the United States.

Moreover, al qaeda was a known threat during the Clinton administration, one that was completely ignored in the first 8 months of the Bush administration. If Bush had even *read* the August 6th PDB (just to remind you, it was titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US," and spoke of the plan to use commuter planes as missiles), he would have known *immediately* upon hearing that a plane flew into the WTC (this occurred prior to him walking into the classroom to read "The Pet Goat") that it was bin Laden's group that was responsible.

Lastly, while you make a valid point that Islamic terrorist attacks were prominent during the Clinton years (though don't act as if this hasn't been something going on outside of the US borders for decades), the US State Department has noted that what they call "significant" terrorist attacks, which measured 175 in 2003 (two years after 9/11) measured 655 just one year later, in 2004. What conclusions can you come to about how successful our foreign policy is in that regard? If you want to conclude that Clinton was a failure because he allowed terrorist attacks to increase under his watch (and let's be honest, that's precisely what you think; you can't blame Bush for anything wrong with the current state of the world, no matter how fucked up you know it truly is - it's all Clinton's fault), then even by that standard, Bush blows him the fuck out of the water in terms of how deserving he is of your scorn.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit."[/QUOTE]

What everyone knew was that the increase in radical fundamentalism had been on the rise since the 70's, it didn't magically start in 1993, even the list you link to shows it ramps up during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Your list proves very little. Many of the attacks listed have their roots in local politics, especially the Israeli, French and Russian events, and fewer still have any connection to Al Queda. It wasn't until Jan. 2000 when the FBI had evidence connecting Bin Laden to anything, and he was indicted. Sadly he didn't show up in court.

The Clinton administration knew that terrorism was the biggest threat to the US and started having weekly Presidential briefings on the subject, sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Osama, moved Richard Clarke's team into the White House, etc. (Funny how all that stopped cold after he left office.) If you want to say he didn't do enough, fine, but that's through some pretty admittedly partisan, hindsighted lenses. At the time he had done more then GW did, more then George Sr., more the Ronny... combined.

What should he have done? Invaded Afghanistan to serve an arrest warrant? As evidenced by our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan running willy nilly into the middle east tends to not work out too well. Do you realize how 1) logistically impossible it would have been without Pakistan in our court? Pakistan, who at the time just went nuclear and was first place on our international shitlist? 2) Unpopular internationally, we would hav enever put together the international coalition we would have required. 3) unpopular at home? He had already gung ho'd his way into Bosnia and gotten clobbered by the right in the press for it (oddly enough, Dubya is quoted as criticizing him for hot having an exit strategy, sheesh). Clinton lacked the legal and moral justification to invade. Bush on the other hand waited around ignoring all the warnings until something inevitably did happen, then used that moral righteousness to take over Afghanistan, not to mention, move forward the Neo-Con agenda into Iraq.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']

Pretty self-explanatory[/QUOTE]

only if you are a simp. Seriously, you are using random lists? Reagan had about as many as Clinton. So is 9/11 all Reagan's fault now?

And if " everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse" than Congress (including Republicans now going after Clinton) are just as culpable. I don't recall Bush ever mentioning terrorism in the 2000 campaign. Now, in hindsight, some dipshit from the powerline blog wants to re-write history but only for Clinton. Give me fucking break.

Here is a list from the 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

Gutted by the GOP.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."


Look I am not going to sit here and argue that Clinton could not have done more, or that the Federal gov't was/ is a mess of red tape, tuff wars and in-fighting. But this right-wing bullcrap talking point "teH CliNTon did noss-sing!!" is revisionist history in itself and anyone with an ounce of honesty knows it.
 
Anyone else remember the great bleatings of "wag the dog"?

Clinton could not bomb Bin Laden without people bitching.
 
"The movie ends with the attacks of 9/11, so that's 5 YEARS OF fuckING UP that the movie has chosen to ignore. " -myke

The movie is called "the path to 9/11."

I would hasten to think that, despite your unhinged ranting about Bush being a bad president because he didn't run screaming from a grade school somehow being more indicitave of a bad president than the list of terrorist attacks occuring during Clinton's presidency*, you could at least keep your facts straight long enough to understand that the movie was about the actions leading to 9/11, not anything occuring after.

But now, in the wake of 9/11, democrats seem to want to pretend that the fact that there have been 0 terrorist attacks on US soil since that fateful day 5 years ago is not important, and instead revive the old "Bush is a coward" canard.

Myke, do you remember when farenheit 9/11 came out? That piece of flaming shit disguised as a documentary was a disgrace to anyone attached to it, and has lawsuits pending against it to this day (by servicemen and other interviewees whose interviews were used either against their wishes or obtained fraudently).

Do you remember how that film supposedly connected Bin Laden to the Bush family?

Tell me, if someone released a "documentary" using unvalidated (and falisfied) evidence connecting you to the most notorious terrorist in modern history, do you think you would probably have a good case for slander?

Yet, Bush chose not to respond. Why? because his desire to protect this country is a little more important than some made up bullshit about him.

I will be the first to say that the path to 9/11 is a dramatization, and takes liberty with the facts in some of its scenes. But to have an ex-president's party threatening to revoke ABC's broadcasting permit for airing a watered-down lashing of its beloved member, given the propensity for the same party to slander their opponents on a daily basis is not only hypocritical, but ignorant.

So, as you begin mustering up some witty retort, I hope you will forgive my utter indifference as I laugh at the comments here.

It is hard to keep a straight face when you see a people so used to dishing out bullshit and lies finally get a little in return.

And to think, in the overall picture, this little docudrama is not even close to comparing to the mountains of lies republicans have had to endure in the name of Liberal "art" via movies, actors, TV shows and the like.
 
Again, no one is saying Bush is blameless in the 9/11 attacks.

We are saying that just because the 1993 WTC attacks, the US cole bombing, and various other terrorist attacks during the clintonian years didn't ellicit as many casulties doesn't absolve Clinton of blame.

IOW, someone please explain to me how someone with 8 fucking years to exterminate a known terrorist who repeatedly planned, threatened, and executed terrorist acts against the US and its interests is somehow not at all liable for an attack that occured just 8 monts after he left office.

How is it so easy for you all to forget the first WTC bombing?

If Clinton was so tough on terror, wouldn't logic neccessitate that, the fact that another attempt was made on THE SAME BUILDING by a group with ties to the original bombers, maybe he wasn't as effective as you like to believe?

Or does standing behind your liberal beliefs trump facts, logic, and common sense?

Just askin...
 
MSUT,

I long ago learned you have nothing of any substance to contribute.

That's why you weren't mentioned in my post.

Now, fuck off and let the adults talk.
 
Very, Clinton did quite a bit. W did almost nothing concerning terrorism until 9/11 and even then he was more concerned with Saddam.

Clinton could not bomb Bin Laden without right wingers bitching.

Faced with these facts your replies are less than nothing.
 
as long as your "just askin", how is Clinton responsible for the first WTC attack which occured about a month into his term yet Bush gets a pass for one that happened 8 months into his?

And don't give me that "no one says Bush is blameless" line because it rings hollow when that is your only criticism of the man which preceed a laundry list of dubious Clinton's faults.



*and please spare us the false bravado, it's lame.
 
Again with the ASSumptions, us.

First of all, read my posts on this subject. I am not schuerm, or any other resident rebublican on here, so let's try to keep the debate to what I said.

my point in pointing to the first WTC attack was exactly what you said, only a little garbled.

Allow me to reiterate:

If clinton was not responsible for the WTC attack in 1993, why then, is Bush responsible for the same type of attack just 8 years later?
 
Dig up some facts for me, please:

1) The day that Clinton took office for his first term
2) Do the same for George W. Bush
3) The day of the WTC bombing in 1993
4) The day of the WTC attacks in 2001

My question is contingent upon those dates.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']If clinton was not responsible for the WTC attack in 1993, why then, is Bush responsible for the same type of attack just 8 years later?[/QUOTE]

Bush was not "responsible" he was merely incredibly incompetent and negligent.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']
But now, in the wake of 9/11, democrats seem to want to pretend that the fact that there have been 0 terrorist attacks on US soil since that fateful day 5 years ago is not important, and instead revive the old "Bush is a coward" canard.[/quote]

America hasn't been hit by a Tsunami in the last five years, obviously, the Bush Doctrine is saving us from Tsunamis. There were no terrorist attacks on the homeland during the Carter Administration, HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS!?! BLARGH!!!

That argument is a logical fallacy.

Myke, do you remember when farenheit 9/11 came out? That piece of flaming shit disguised as a documentary was a disgrace to anyone attached to it, and has lawsuits pending against it to this day (by servicemen and other interviewees whose interviews were used either against their wishes or obtained fraudently).
Do you remember how that film supposedly connected Bin Laden to the Bush family?
Click to expand...

So I went and spent a hour reading through 'The 59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11' listed through the FarenHYPE 9/11 film and website. A lot of the guys complaints are semantic, a few more are directed at 'low blows' which maybe mean, but not factually incorrect, and exaggerations, which may not be to the letter true, but certainly have a basis in fact. Which was my biggest complaint about F9/11, why did he need to exaggerate when the facts themselves are damning enough? Anyways, my point being that maybe it's not the 'flaming pies of shit' you paint it as.

Tell me, if someone released a "documentary" using unvalidated (and falisfied) evidence connecting you to the most notorious terrorist in modern history, do you think you would probably have a good case for slander?
Click to expand...

Moore's evidence isn't falsified, he points out the several connections between the two men, which there are, strained, but there. Bin Laden's family invests in the Carlyle Corp. Bush Sr. was on the board. Bush's army buddy and former financial advisor James Bath was paid by the Bin Ladens, he then turned around and invested it in Bush's failed Arbusto Energy comapany.

Yet, Bush chose not to respond. Why? because his desire to protect this country is a little more important than some made up bullshit about him.
Click to expand...

When you picture the president in your minds eye, does he wear a cape?

And to think, in the overall picture, this little docudrama is not even close to comparing to the mountains of lies republicans have had to endure in the name of Liberal "art" via movies, actors, TV shows and the like.
Click to expand...

Yes, the down trodden, powerless Republicans. That's my favorite Republican ploy, "We're the victims! We're being oppressed!" Yeah, you only control all three branches of Gov't, every major corporation, the military and often lay claim to Christianity. You poor, little things.

[quote name='Veritas1204']Again, no one is saying Bush is blameless in the 9/11 attacks.
We are saying that just because the 1993 WTC attacks, the US cole bombing, and various other terrorist attacks during the clintonian years didn't ellicit as many casulties doesn't absolve Clinton of blame.[/QUOTE]

No one said the Clinton Administration was absolved, but he he doesn't deserve the whole blame either.

IOW, someone please explain to me how someone with 8 fucking years to exterminate a known terrorist who repeatedly planned, threatened, and executed terrorist acts against the US and its interests is somehow not at all liable for an attack that occured just 8 monts after he left office.
Click to expand...

Well he did try, he just missed.

How is it so easy for you all to forget the first WTC bombing? If Clinton was so tough on terror, wouldn't logic neccessitate that, the fact that another attempt was made on THE SAME BUILDING by a group with ties to the original bombers, maybe he wasn't as effective as you like to believe?
Click to expand...

With that logic we should expect Al Queda to ht LAX next. They tried once before, they'll certainly try again. Obviously he wasn't terribly successful, but at least he tried, at least his administration did something.


(edited to change the reference to the Carter administration from 'there were attacks' to there were NO attacks' - chz)
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Again with the ASSumptions, us.

First of all, read my posts on this subject. I am not schuerm, or any other resident rebublican on here, so let's try to keep the debate to what I said.

my point in pointing to the first WTC attack was exactly what you said, only a little garbled.

Allow me to reiterate:

If clinton was not responsible for the WTC attack in 1993, why then, is Bush responsible for the same type of attack just 8 years later?[/QUOTE]

speaking of assumptions, I never said you were a repub....only a Defender of Bush.

But even I don't hold Bush resposible but there is a huge difference between really the first terrorist attack on US soil one month into Clinton's term and 9/11.

Bush had a warning. Bush had the previous administration tell him of the threat. Bush had , according to these cute lists o' terror, a history upon which to draw. Bush had 8 months. He had time to go on vacation. He had time to pay a little attention to Bin Laden and he didn't. oh yeah, the 1993 was largely unsuccessful.

If you don't see the difference, there is really no need to argue.

FYI- by Bush I mean his entire administration.
 
Yeah, always love the argument that he's doing a good job, simply because we haven't been hit again, thats when you can tell theres obviously little more the mindless drone who sputtered it has to say. 9/11 wasn't bad enough for you? Oh right, that was clintons fault based on ABCs twisted false turn of events... 9 months into bushs 'presidency'!
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Yeah, always love the argument that he's doing a good job, simply because we haven't been hit again, thats when you can tell theres obviously little more the mindless drone who sputtered it has to say. 9/11 wasn't bad enough for you? Oh right, that was clintons fault based on ABCs twisted false turn of events... 9 months into bushs 'presidency'![/QUOTE]

don't forget, 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.'

b/c Bush did....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609130003


Part two of The Path to 9/11 contained a dramatic re-enactment of a September 4, 2001, meeting between then-Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke, then-CIA director George Tenet, and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In the film, Rice tells Clarke and Tenet:
RICE: Morning, gentlemen. As a result of the August 6 [2001] Presidential Daily Briefing [PDB], the president is tired of swatting flies. He believes Al Qaeda is a real threat, and he wants to consider real action. He specifically asked about the armed Predator. Where are we with that?
​
The PDB -- a highly classified intelligence estimate -- for August 6, 2001, was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." This scene from the film, however, is factually inconsistent with the 9-11 Commission report, upon which the writer and director of the "docudrama" claimed the film was heavily based.
...

In another scene in part two of the miniseries, Vice President Dick Cheney, after conversing with Bush over the phone immediately following the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, announced: "The president has just given the shoot-down order":

CONTROLLER 1: You are to establish combat air patrol over Manhattan.
PILOT: Huntress, please advise. Do we have shoot-down authority?
CONTROLLER 1: Do you know of the rules of engagement?
OFFICER: Stand by.
CHENEY (on phone with Bush): Sir, the fighters are up. But they -- they want to know what to do. Sir, it may require extreme measures.
CLARKE: Where's Don Rumsfeld?
CONTROLLER 2: Is that American 77 or United 93 that just hit the Pentagon?
CONTROLLER 3: I've still got 93 on my screen. About 20 minutes out of Washington.
CONTROLLER 2: If that plane's headed for Washington, it could be serious.
CONTROLLER 3: I know. I know. A whole bunch of people just left the room. They're making phone calls.
CHENEY: The president has just given the shoot-down order.
​
However, as Salon.com editor in chief Joan Walsh wrote in a September 11 article on the film, "the worst lie I haven't seen critiqued has to do with whether Bush gave the go-ahead for American fighter jets to shoot down hijacked airliners." As Walsh noted, Vanity Fair published an analysis of the recordings from the control room at NORAD's Northeast headquarters from September 11, 2001, indicating that Bush did not actually give the order to shoot down the hijacked airplanes; he authorized military commanders to make the decision themselves, and he did not grant that authorization until 10:18 a.m. -- 15 minutes after United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and 41 minutes after American Airlines Flight 77 had struck the Pentagon. However, as Vanity Fair also noted, Cheney and other White House officials would later "recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93."
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Metal Boss. It's nice to see such confirmation that this was a fair handed film that equally made things up to chide the actions of the Clinton and Bush administrations. :roll:

That phony September 4, 2001 quote of Rice's is fucking *PRICELESS* :rofl:
 
Did anyone else get creeped out by that bit of fantasy.

We are down the rabbit hole my friends.

Orwell was off by 22 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top