ABC 9/11 FAIRY TALE "The Path to 9/11"

[randym431]

ABC is going to air the mini drama "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday and Monday. Written by a friend of Rush L. and total crap, it will contain scenes that NEVER HAPPENED, but plays to the right wing "lets pretend" of what happened.
Scenes like Bin Laden being cornered during the Clinton admin by special forces, and waiting the go ahead to get Bin Laden, and the Clinton people saying "no, don?t do it". Total crap... Never happened!
Thats how this so called mini drama will play. So just keep in mind, if you bother to waste two nights watching this junket, keep in mind who wrote it, where it comes from and why its being aired, to play to the right wing nut cases.
And another scene where Rice, after GW supposedly read the 9/11 PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US", Rice is running around saying how worried GW is about this. Remember... if you will, Rice herself said MANY TIMES to the 9/11 commission "it wasn?t an important PDB since it was of historical nature".
The 9/11 commission themselves stated that "there was no evidence, before 9/11 attack, that Bush or his staff ever discussed this PDB. And it is very unlikely Bush even read, NEVER READ, this PDB BEFORE 9/11.?
Thanks ABC for another Disney fairytale.
Oh, they were going to change the book Bush was reading from "the pet goat" to, "how to protect Americans" But someone dropped the ball.
The Path to 9/11 - total nonsense from ABC to fairytale lovers on the right...

 

[ProfJohn]

randym431, where were you when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11?

Were you jumping up and down and calling it "total crap"?
How about the CBS Reagan mini-series that also created events and portrayed Reagan in a bad light?

Now all of a sudden someone is releasing a show that makes a Democrat look bad and the world is coming to an end?

Do you not see the hypocirscy of the left on this?

 

[Enig101]

We all have bias. It is unfair to generalise and say the "left" are hypocritical to such a degree. I am sure that many liberals/conservatives/moderates can recognise BS when they see it, regardless of what party it caters to.

Intelligent people take political programming with a grain of salt. Unfortunately there are far too many unintelligent people.

 

[dahunan]

How could you release a honest show that would portray Reagan in a good light?

How could anyone believe anything any politician ever says.. they are all criminals - some just better criminals than others.

anyhow.. I believe bush and rumsfeld and cheney and the neocons let bin laden attack america.. they never thought it would be that serious? or were they in on it?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: randym431
it will contain scenes that NEVER HAPPENED

From the Boston Globe:
Some of the characters are composite sketches of real people (such as FBI agent Kirk, portrayed by Donnie Wahlberg) and some of the events portrayed are ``dramatized" in various ways (such as a CIA attempt to kidnap Osama bin Laden which was scuttled at the last minute after agents with guns were already hiding in his home. Platt says there were actually about 10 such attempts but details from those were all rolled into one for the movie).

Obviously any events involving FBI agent Kirk "never happened" That is why it is called a "dramatization"

The movie itself is loosely based on the 9/11 Commission Final Report issued July 22, 2004, and the 2003 book The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It by journalists John Miller, Michael Stone, and Chris Mitchell

The right seems to love the movie, while the left seems to hate it.

I am wondering if the objectionable scenes were created in order to provide drama, or to make Clinton and company look bad.

Edit: Let's not forget that ABC is rather liberal and gives 66% of its campaign money to democrats.

 

[randym431]

Not the same. This is 9/11, an attack on Americans. Why lie and try to rewrite the book of facts. Btw, ABC liberal??? Wasn?t it ABC that aired the junk against Kerry just before the election with statements from veterans that never actually served with Kerry, even though they said they did? ABC...??? Iraq...??? WMD...??? Facts or fiction...??? What do you want?
Michael Moore was about a sour election. The Path to 9/11 concerns deaths both 9/11 victims then and many many soldiers since.

People are going to watch this and think its fact. Thats sad...

 

[ProfJohn]

"The Path to 9/11" is a movie that tries to potray the events that lead up to the 9-11 attack.
We know that there were many errors made leading up to the attacks and that our "system" failed to protect us from this attack.

The Clinton people don't like this movie because it shows the many errors made by them. However, the very nature of events and history is going to place most of the blame for 9-11 on Clinton. There was almost 9 years between the 1993 World Trade Center blast and 9-11. Clinton was president for 8 of those years, therefore a movie focusing on that time is going to focus on the Clinton mistakes. At the same time the movie will down play any successes of the Clinton's because the movie is not about their successes, but their failures. Bush is not immune from criticism either as there were also errors made by Bush, but he was only in office for 8 months before the attacks took place.


I don't think this movie is a politcal "hack" job. I think the people on the left, who have not seen it, are upset because it makes thier "hero" Bill Clinton look bad.
It also makes Bush look bad as well:
1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke's advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House.
2. It depicts the August 6th briefing wherein Rice is warned before 9-11 that Bin Laden intends to hijack American airplaces.

 

[theeedude]

Ah yes, when in doubt, blame Clinton for everything.
Never mind that Ashcroft didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda in 2001, maybe he was too busy covering nude statues.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/0...l-qaeda-in-high-threat-summer-of-2001/

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: randym431
ABC is going to air the mini drama "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday and Monday. Written by a friend of Rush L. and total crap, it will contain scenes that NEVER HAPPENED, but plays to the right wing "lets pretend" of what happened.
Scenes like Bin Laden being cornered during the Clinton admin by special forces, and waiting the go ahead to get Bin Laden, and the Clinton people saying "no, don?t do it". Total crap... Never happened!
Thats how this so called mini drama will play. So just keep in mind, if you bother to waste two nights watching this junket, keep in mind who wrote it, where it comes from and why its being aired, to play to the right wing nut cases.
And another scene where Rice, after GW supposedly read the 9/11 PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US", Rice is running around saying how worried GW is about this. Remember... if you will, Rice herself said MANY TIMES to the 9/11 commission "it wasn?t an important PDB since it was of historical nature".
The 9/11 commission themselves stated that "there was no evidence, before 9/11 attack, that Bush or his staff ever discussed this PDB. And it is very unlikely Bush even read, NEVER READ, this PDB BEFORE 9/11.?
Thanks ABC for another Disney fairytale.
Oh, they were going to change the book Bush was reading from "the pet goat" to, "how to protect Americans" But someone dropped the ball.
The Path to 9/11 - total nonsense from ABC to fairytale lovers on the right...

They say the truth hurts.......hehehee

 

[Starbuck1975]

How could you release a honest show that would portray Reagan in a good light?

If that were the case, why the need to fabricate drama in a miniseries to portray Reagan in a less then favorable light...surely, if Reagan was such a poor President, the facts and events of his administration would speak for themselves?

 

[theeedude]

Is there a terrorist Reagan didn't love?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Ah yes, when in doubt, blame Clinton for everything.
Never mind that Ashcroft didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda in 2001, maybe he was too busy covering nude statues.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/0...l-qaeda-in-high-threat-summer-of-2001/

Who is blaming Clinton for everything? There is blame enough for everyone. The problem is Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al-Qaeda, Bush had 8 months. Based on that it is hard to blame them equally.

 

[theeedude]

Umm, Bush now had 5 years after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, with the full might of the US military and broad domestic and international support. And conserva-morons are blaming Clinton for not doing it with some missiles and special forces when noone really had appettite for a war in Afghanistan?

 

[theeedude]

Also, remember what the Republicans did when Clinton tried to bomb Bin-Laden. Instead of supporting him, they mocked him for bombing a couple tents.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Umm, Bush now had 5 years after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, with the full might of the US military and broad domestic and international support. And conserva-morons are blaming Clinton for not doing it with some missiles and special forces when noone really had appettite for a war in Afghanistan?

Ummm we haven't had a terror attack against a US target, outside of Iraq and Afganistan which are in wars, since 9-11.

Before 9-11 we were getting hit about once every year and a half. Since 9-11, not one attack.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Umm, Bush now had 5 years after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, with the full might of the US military and broad domestic and international support. And conserva-morons are blaming Clinton for not doing it with some missiles and special forces when noone really had appettite for a war in Afghanistan?

Ummm we haven't had a terror attack against a US target, outside of Iraq and Afganistan which are in wars, since 9-11.

Before 9-11 we were getting hit about once every year and a half. Since 9-11, not one attack.

Where were we getting hit every year and a half? In the US?

 

[theeedude]

Plus, 5 years after killing 3000 Americans, with the full focus of Bush administration on terrorism, Osama Bin Laden still has not been brought to justice. At this rate, he will die of old age.

 

[yllus]

Hahaha, I love how when HBO aired an anti-Bush 'documentary' the denizens of P&Ns were all about defending it - "Have you seen it? Blah blah right-wing talking points you haven't even seen it!!!111one" - but now that we get a whiff of a pro-Bush 'documentary', let's just draw all our conclusions now and make sure nobody watches it! :laugh:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: yllus
Hahaha, I love how when HBO aired an anti-Bush 'documentary' the denizens of P&Ns were all about defending it - "Have you seen it? Blah blah right-wing talking points you haven't even seen it!!!111one" - but now that we get a whiff of a pro-Bush 'documentary', let's just draw all our conclusions now and make sure nobody watches it! :laugh:

Umm. Documentary kind of implies it's non-fiction. This one is fictional.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: yllus
Hahaha, I love how when HBO aired an anti-Bush 'documentary' the denizens of P&Ns were all about defending it - "Have you seen it? Blah blah right-wing talking points you haven't even seen it!!!111one" - but now that we get a whiff of a pro-Bush 'documentary', let's just draw all our conclusions now and make sure nobody watches it! :laugh:

Umm. Documentary kind of implies it's non-fiction. This one is fictional.

Michael Moore films, like this Spike Lee effort, are documentaries too. And yet they managed to contain a significant amount of fictional material.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: yllus
Hahaha, I love how when HBO aired an anti-Bush 'documentary' the denizens of P&Ns were all about defending it - "Have you seen it? Blah blah right-wing talking points you haven't even seen it!!!111one" - but now that we get a whiff of a pro-Bush 'documentary', let's just draw all our conclusions now and make sure nobody watches it! :laugh:

Umm. Documentary kind of implies it's non-fiction. This one is fictional.

Michael Moore films, like this Spike Lee effort, are documentaries too. And yet they managed to contain a significant amount of fictional material.

Such as...

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: dahunan
How could you release a honest show that would portray Reagan in a good light?

How could anyone believe anything any politician ever says.. they are all criminals - some just better criminals than others.

anyhow.. I believe bush and rumsfeld and cheney and the neocons let bin laden attack america.. they never thought it would be that serious? or were they in on it?

Or were they in on it? :roll:

I personally can't stand Bush and especially Cheney/Rumsfeld but get real.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Umm, Bush now had 5 years after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, with the full might of the US military and broad domestic and international support. And conserva-morons are blaming Clinton for not doing it with some missiles and special forces when noone really had appettite for a war in Afghanistan?

True, although arguably 9/11 exposed Bin Laden as the threat he really was and remains...once it became apparent that America intended to launch a military offensive in Afghanistan, all Bin Laden had to do was fade into the remote areas where he has the most support. Most intelligence analysts and experts agree that Bin Laden is probably hiding somewhere in Pakistan...which somewhat complicates our search, given that Pakistan is reluctant to allow American forces free reign within their borders.

Also, remember what the Republicans did when Clinton tried to bomb Bin-Laden. Instead of supporting him, they mocked him for bombing a couple tents.

An unfortunate result of partisan politics...Clinton certainly wasn't afraid to drop a few bombs for a peacetime President...Serbia and Iraq can certainly attest to that...although in fairness to Clinton, the sheer number of emerging threats to American interests is staggering...more so then many would expect...and choosing which threats to engage with a military solution is not always easy.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: yllus
Hahaha, I love how when HBO aired an anti-Bush 'documentary' the denizens of P&Ns were all about defending it - "Have you seen it? Blah blah right-wing talking points you haven't even seen it!!!111one" - but now that we get a whiff of a pro-Bush 'documentary', let's just draw all our conclusions now and make sure nobody watches it! :laugh:

Umm. Documentary kind of implies it's non-fiction. This one is fictional.

Michael Moore films, like this Spike Lee effort, are documentaries too. And yet they managed to contain a significant amount of fictional material.

Such as...

From what I understand, there was some tinfoil hat stuff like the levees were intentionally destroyed. I haven't seen it though, so you'd have to defer to someone else to confirm that.

An unfortunate result of partisan politics...Clinton certainly wasn't afraid to drop a few bombs for a peacetime President...Serbia and Iraq can certainly attest to that...although in fairness to Clinton, the sheer number of emerging threats to American interests is staggering...more so then many would expect...and choosing which threats to engage with a military solution is not always easy.

Yeah, that's the one thing I don't get. The film supposedly tries to frame things in such a way that Clinton was afraid to attack. But it's like, when did Clinton ever say no to a missile strike?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
randym431, where were you when Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11?

Were you jumping up and down and calling it "total crap"?
How about the CBS Reagan mini-series that also created events and portrayed Reagan in a bad light?

Now all of a sudden someone is releasing a show that makes a Democrat look bad and the world is coming to an end?

Do you not see the hypocirscy of the left on this?

Moore based his movies on 6 pages of documented and sourced facts. Nothing wrong with it.