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

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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

They say you are a fool... hehehe.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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

Where do you get your information?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/...is/CompanyProfile.aspx?HOID=8034#Lobby

Top 10 recipients of contributions sourced to this organization
Recipient Amount
National Republican Party Committees $1,022,990
National Democratic Party Committees $783,880
Sen John F Kerry (D-MA) $66,050
Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $55,400
Sen Thomas Andrew Daschle (D-SD) $52,050
Rep Howard L Berman (D-CA) $47,000
Rep John D Dingell (D-MI) $43,500
Sen Bill Nelson (D-FL) $42,500
President George W Bush (R) $40,400
Kerry Victory 2004 $37,000
Source: Federal Election Commission contribution records from 1998 to 2004

Trips sponsored for congressional staff
Congressional Office # of Trips $ Amount
Rep John D Dingell (D-MI) 1 $6,295
Rep Wilbert J Tauzin, Jr (R-LA) 5 $5,032
Sen Tim Johnson (D-SD) 1 $2,483
Sen John F Kerry (D-MA) 1 $1,828
Sen Theodore F Stevens (R-AK) 1 $895
Sen Gordon Harold Smith (R-OR) 1 $571
Sen Byron L Dorgan (D-ND) 1 $571
Sen Donald Lee Nickles (R-OK) 1 $571
Democratic Committee Staffers with forms signed by Republican Chairman 1 $357
Source: Congressional office travel records for members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for the period of January 2000 to March 2004.

By those records it is ~52-48% to the Dems. Not quite the one sided favortism that you claim.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Who is blaming Clinton for everything?

Why of course all of you on the right come Monday for sure. I'm just wondering who here in the peanut gallery is going to be the first to exclaim

"SEE IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!!!! EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA FINALLY ADMITS IT!!! NO WONDER YOU LEFTISTS CAN'T WIN ELECTIONS!!!!"

 

[Pens1566]

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.

That's a nice point you got there. One that is taken apart quite easily in "The One Percent Doctrine". Good read too.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

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.

That's a nice point you got there. One that is taken apart quite easily in "The One Percent Doctrine". Good read too.

But you're forgetting--he's got the trusty "Terrorist Deterring Rock" (sent to all GOP sponsors)

 

[QuantumPion]

I like how some on the left use the argument that we havn't caugh Bin Laden yet as a measure of ultimate failure of the Bush administration. We have practically annihilated Al Qaida, killing and capturing most of their leaders, including the architect of the September 11th attack, Al Zawahiri. Even though Bin Laden is essentially just a figure head for Al Qaida, we somehow have "lost the war on terror" by not managing to capture him, completely ignoring all of the meaningful successes we've had.

Think about it this way, libs. Let's say in 2008 or 2012, a democrat wins the presidency. Assuming the war on terror is still going on in the same manner it is now, would you criticize your own guy for still failing to capture Bin Laden? The answer is no, you wouldn't, because you would be too busy praising said democrat for signing UN-backed peace accords with Iran in exhange for their promise not to develop nuclear weapons, which they would anyway without fear of retribution ala Jimmy Carter/North Korea.

 

[alchemize]

Booo creepy islamic terrorists...

Yay partisan hackery!!!

 

[DealMonkey]

Hey, I have a novel idea! I think I'll watch it and then report back on all of the shortcomings and misinformation.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Booo creepy islamic terrorists...

Yay partisan hackery!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN OR YOU'LL DIE!!!!

 

[straightalker]

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...

Tinfoil hate conspiracy theorists will love watching this program. You know. The proponants of that bizarre theory that some nutcase Islamic radicals in remote Afghanistan, some stinking desert cave bums toting AK47s in one hand and a satellite phone in the other, managed to foil the defenses of the most heavily defended building on the planet, while simultaneously causing the absolutely impossible effect of crumbling three giant skyscrapers at freefall speed straight to the ground as piles of neatly cut steal beams and powderized heaps of high explosive debris.

You can't describe the tinfoil hate mindset that these tinfoiler's have as being either a politically left-wing or right-wing mindset. No. That mindset is all about profits $$$. It's a play dumb get rich ride the stock higher buy low sell high sort of mindset. No love of country or respect for the soldiers who get used and abused as the pawns on the Grand Chessboard of Middle and Central Asia.

This TV Show is spoon feeding babyfood to the next generation of dumbed down vegetables who will grow up to be carrots, turnips and cabbage heads. Twirl their propellor caps suck their thumb wrap in safety blanket gain weight in front of TV joe sixpack flag wavers.

Lack of punctuation intensional for sarcastic effect. We're describing something so bizarre it defies the normal laws of physics and reality. The propaganda mill and it's plump fat couch potatoes. Click the remote to see the next televized war, the next blood&gutz 24/7 soap opera. ...Iran.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I like how some on the left use the argument that we havn't caugh Bin Laden yet as a measure of ultimate failure of the Bush administration. We have practically annihilated Al Qaida, killing and capturing most of their leaders, including the architect of the September 11th attack, Al Zawahiri. Even though Bin Laden is essentially just a figure head for Al Qaida, we somehow have "lost the war on terror" by not managing to capture him, completely ignoring all of the meaningful successes we've had.

Yes, things are going absolutely SWIMMINGLY in Iraq and Afghanistan! Hell, we're tripping on the rose gardens they're throwing at us but that damned liberal media refuses to report it and instead constantly co-opts the terrorists who wish us harm.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I like how some on the left use the argument that we havn't caugh Bin Laden yet as a measure of ultimate failure of the Bush administration. We have practically annihilated Al Qaida, killing and capturing most of their leaders, including the architect of the September 11th attack, Al Zawahiri. Even though Bin Laden is essentially just a figure head for Al Qaida, we somehow have "lost the war on terror" by not managing to capture him, completely ignoring all of the meaningful successes we've had.

Yes, things are going absolutely SWIMMINGLY in Iraq and Afghanistan! Hell, we're tripping on the rose gardens they're throwing at us but that damned liberal media refuses to report it and instead constantly co-opts the terrorists who wish us harm.

So if we retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, letting their fragile democracies crumble and islamic fascists regain control, but manage to catch Bin Laden, you think we would be better off?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I like how some on the left use the argument that we havn't caugh Bin Laden yet as a measure of ultimate failure of the Bush administration. We have practically annihilated Al Qaida, killing and capturing most of their leaders, including the architect of the September 11th attack, Al Zawahiri. Even though Bin Laden is essentially just a figure head for Al Qaida, we somehow have "lost the war on terror" by not managing to capture him, completely ignoring all of the meaningful successes we've had.

Yes, things are going absolutely SWIMMINGLY in Iraq and Afghanistan! Hell, we're tripping on the rose gardens they're throwing at us but that damned liberal media refuses to report it and instead constantly co-opts the terrorists who wish us harm.

So if we retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, letting their fragile democracies crumble and islamic fascists regain control, but manage to catch Bin Laden, you think we would be better off?

Who do you think is in control in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: straightalker

This TV Show is spoon feeding the next generation of dumbed down vegetables who will grow up to be carrots, turnips and cabbage heads.

Scholastic also has that angle covered in case the movie doesn't work (via propagand...uh...material they're sending to schools in conjunction with the movie).

Looks like Rove wants to be sure if the adults can't make the "right" decision in November, Little Johnny and Little Janey will help out ("But daddy! You can't vote for a Democrat! They hate America and want me to die!")

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: 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.

But when Clinton actually tried to do something all the reps. started yelling "Wag the Dog!" I agree he didn't do enough, but the republicans put a quick stop to what he actually did attempt.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I like how some on the left use the argument that we havn't caugh Bin Laden yet as a measure of ultimate failure of the Bush administration. We have practically annihilated Al Qaida, killing and capturing most of their leaders, including the architect of the September 11th attack, Al Zawahiri. Even though Bin Laden is essentially just a figure head for Al Qaida, we somehow have "lost the war on terror" by not managing to capture him, completely ignoring all of the meaningful successes we've had.

Yes, things are going absolutely SWIMMINGLY in Iraq and Afghanistan! Hell, we're tripping on the rose gardens they're throwing at us but that damned liberal media refuses to report it and instead constantly co-opts the terrorists who wish us harm.

So if we retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, letting their fragile democracies crumble and islamic fascists regain control, but manage to catch Bin Laden, you think we would be better off?

Who is advocating leaving Afghanistan?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Pens1566

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.

That's a nice point you got there. One that is taken apart quite easily in "The One Percent Doctrine". Good read too.

But you're forgetting--he's got the trusty "Terrorist Deterring Rock" (sent to all GOP sponsors)

Bush: "Cheney, I'd like to buy your rock!"

 

[extra]

I don't get why, when bashing republican propaganda-oriented material, one brings up michael moore.

There are plenty of us that hate bush and don't care for michael moore's crap either!

You know what is sad tho, is Michael Moore's the awful truth used to do some awesome stuff.

 

[Aisengard]

Remember when Clinton actually DID something about Bin Laden? "Bombed his tent" and only missed by hours? Remember the Republican response?

That's all we need to know about the buildup to 9/11. Republicans didn't want to do anything about it then ("Waah, Clinton gets more in a day than we can in ten years!"), they didn't want to do anything about it the year it happened, and they don't want to do anything about it now.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Remember when Clinton actually DID something about Bin Laden? "Bombed his tent" and only missed by hours? Remember the Republican response?

But didn't get him...close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades...our troops in Afghanistan have come "close" to getting Bin Laden as well on several occasions.

("Waah, Clinton gets more in a day than we can in ten years!")

Quality not quantity

and they don't want to do anything about it now.

I suppose deploying troops and removing the Taliban from power counts as doing nothing in the partisan politics game.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or pull 9/11 miniseries

Can't have the truth exposed about Clinton before his wife begins her campaign now can we? 9/11 will always have to be Bush's fault!

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Can't have the truth exposed about Clinton before his wife begins her campaign now can we? 9/11 will always have to be Bush's fault!

< Jack Nicholson voice >

You can't handle the truth!

< /Jack Nicholson voice >

Last night, on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, 9/11 Commission member, Richard Ben-Veniste said:

The president was the only one, prior to 9/11, to launch any kind of attack against bin Laden and this documentary as ?documentary? as it?s purported to be, is supposed to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and that?s why I was critical. This is a free country, people can be creative, they can could what they wish, but if you say it is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, that it should be accurate. And that?s where my criticism begins.
.
.
There are many scenes, including another scene where it appears that Masoued (ph), a tribal leader in Afghanistan, is virtually standing 50 yards away from bin Laden, is prepared is attack him and then he?s called back because the operation is called off. That just didn?t happen. We never had anybody on the ground that close to bin Laden who identified where bin Laden was. It was quite clear, as to 9/11 Commission Report states, that Clinton authorized the CIA and the American forces to get bin Laden, captured or killed. And this mini-series does not depict it accurately.

If this is to be an educational film, which is purported to be, because they?re intended to extend out to schools and portray this as?this material as fact factual, then it should keep to the facts and unfortunately in the material I saw relating to the first part of the program, there are errors, there are mischaracterizations, including the portrayal of president Clinton being distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair that he took his eye off the ball in connection with his obligations to protect us against terrorism.

But in fact the commission report comes to the opposite conclusion and that is that the Lewinsky affair did not deter him from launching missile attacks at bin Laden?s strongholds in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And yet at the time, Clinton was attacked for wag the dog, for trying to distract away from the Lewinsky affair and so this is very inaccurate and unfair in that regard.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Clinton officials to ABC: Fix or pull 9/11 miniseries

Can't have the truth exposed about Clinton before his wife begins her campaign now can we? 9/11 will always have to be Bush's fault!

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

What's wrong with them asking ABC to fix blatant mistakes? The pulling of the miniseries is kind of over the top though.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What's wrong with them asking ABC to fix blatant mistakes? The pulling of the miniseries is kind of over the top though.

Well your perspective assumes that the assertions and chain of events documented in the mini-series are fabrications...or should we just take the word of former Clinton Administration staffers as ground truth.

Granted, none of us have seen the miniseries yet, so I don't know how damaging or controversial it is...then again, it seems like a reversal of roles, as the outcry from Republicans is quite similar in response to Michael Moore films and the Ronald Reagan miniseries.

One thing I do know...making a fuss over this miniseries is a sure way to attract viewers...I really wasn't interested in seeing it until the controversy emerged.

The political shell game has begun...the Democrats have chosen, perhaps foolishly, to make the unpopular Iraqi war the centerpiece of their campaign strategy...IMO, they should focus on domestic issues and a vision for moving America forward...Bush may be unpopular, but his recent speeches and actions show a determined strategy to frame the WOT into a larger context and struggle...one step further, and this miniseries illustrates this, is that the Republicans are painting a picture where Bush inherited the terrorism problem from an Administration that seemingly did not respond to the growing threat...and that while the Iraqi war may be unpopular, Bush will attempt to paint his Administration as the one that made the hard, unpopular choice in the name of protecting Americans.

I don't buy the political shell game for one bit...but this is Bush's turf, and the Democrats are stupid for challenging him on this issue yet again.

 

[johnnobts]

censorship, censorship, censorship. poor madalyn, sandy, and bill....