Was first night of Path to 9-11 fair?

[DealMonkey]

I watched it and it seemed pretty fair.

 

[Pens1566]

I watched the whole thing. Only parts that seemed to be a little over the top were the ones with Albright. They went kind of rough on her. Still blamed her for alerting the Pakistani's to the incoming tomahawks, which is known to be incorrect.

 

[JeepinEd]

I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Without going too much into my views, even though i absolutely HATE Clinton, i dont think it is fair to blame him for the actions of Osama.

Granted he knew that Osama was planning something, but i dont recall who said this but, "Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.". Clinton should have apprehended Osama, but saying that he is the cause (or part of it) shouldn't happen.

-Kevin

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

 

[piasabird]

Well I did not watch it myself. Generally dont watch much TV on Sunday because not much is worth watching.

I would not trust anything you read in the 9/11 Report. The 9/11 report is just as likely to be a whitewash job to keep you diverted.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

And you know this for a fact? How?

 

[Wheezer]

the fact is it doesn't matter.

the fact is that EVERY admmistration since Carter has dropped the ball.

Hell, with our boarders the open floodgates that they are, OBL could be hiding in this country and we would never know.

I don't care about what was, everyone can do all the finger pointing they want...the fact is we have not learned a thing. Are we safer? somewhat yes, but not enough.

When another strike happens, and it will because of complacancy by the goverment and the people....we'll be right back to square one and this will all be moot.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

And you know this for a fact? How?

Uh ....., it was in the 9-11 comm. report. It was cited by both republican and democrats as being incorrect.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

And you know this for a fact? How?

Uh ....., it was in the 9-11 comm. report. It was cited by both republican and democrats as being incorrect.

Uh... is the report full of worthless lies or not? (Not necessarily you saying that, Pens1566.)

So only the lies that don't support our particular view, are the actual lies?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

And you know this for a fact? How?

Uh ....., it was in the 9-11 comm. report. It was cited by both republican and democrats as being incorrect.

Uh... is the report full of worthless lies or not? (Not necessarily you saying that, Pens1566.)

So only the lies that don't support our particular view, are the actual lies?

Who is questioning the 9-11 report here?

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
I'm no fan of Clinton and I do think he carries a large part of the blame, but I think Albright's portrayal was fair and did not portray her in a bad light.
The thing is, that she was right. If Pakistan was not warned and they thought India was
launching missles at them, it could have created a nuclear war.
Remember that tensions between the two countries were very high at that time.

The thing is, she's not the one that warned Pakistan. It was a military officer. She gets blamed for it in the movie.

And you know this for a fact? How?

Uh ....., it was in the 9-11 comm. report. It was cited by both republican and democrats as being incorrect.

Uh... is the report full of worthless lies or not? (Not necessarily you saying that, Pens1566.)

So only the lies that don't support our particular view, are the actual lies?

Who is questioning the 9-11 report here?

Look around here at AT P&N... you'll find many. I honestly don't know what the truth is...

 

[Pens1566]

I thought you were talking about this thread or the "Path to 9-11" movie. If it's the tin foil crowd, meh.

 

[ProfJohn]

I just read some posts about the Path to 9-11 at "Thinkprogress.org" and I want to say that our tinfoil hat population is nothing compared to theirs.

ABC is full of right wing facists! The only reason to not provide the tape to Clinton, Berger, and Albright is because IT IS A BOLD FACED LIE! A lie sponsored by Rove (aka Joseph Goebbles) and Bush (Adolph Hitler!)

Zieg hile, Bush!

It?s time for people like Clinton to start using their power to inflict retribution upon ABC-Capital Cities.

There are a lot of ways to pay back with hurt and embarrassment, or to freeze out, even a behemoth like ABC-Capital Cities-Disney.

In some things, those with political capital and media access need to step up a fight these battles, and not just rely on the grass/net roots.

That is a good one, let's get revenge on ABC for showing a movie we don't like... nice.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Tom
Those aren't facts.

The Clinton administration is the ONLY administration that made any attempt to rub out Osama before 9/11. That is a fact.

Bush spent a lot more time on vacation than he did worrying about getting Osama, pre 9/11. The Bush administration put absolutely no emphasis on fighting terrorism, and they were very lackadaisical in getting to the issue, they basically were just getting around to it when 9/11 happened.

Another fact is, in 5 years since 9/11 we haven't been able to rub out Osama, even though after 9/11 it is a lot more clear how important it is to do so.

And your comment linking notifying Pakistan with Osama is completely opinion, not factual.

Oh really? Let's look at what Richard Clark had to say. You remember Clark, he was the guy all the Democrats thought was a hero when he was attacking Bush. He also wrote a book attacking Bush and Clinton for inaction against al-queda.
This is from 2002:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

A quick recap for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing.

1. Bush kept Clinton's policy on terror in place while they worked on their one, at same time they increased spending by 5 times.
2. The deputies, the people who do all the leg work and develop policy and action plans for the president to approve, did not get into their roles until late March, early April, only 5 months before 9-11.
3. They then developed a plan that changed the Clinton policy of "rolling back" Al Qaeda, to one of "rapid elimination of Al Qaeda"
4. All these plans were presented to the president the day before the attack, way to late to do any good.

As to your "The Clinton administration is the ONLY administration that made any attempt to rub out Osama before 9/11. " comment.
As was pointed out on Nightline last night after the missed bomb attempt Osama has only been seen TWICE by our intelligence servies, and both times by unarmed drones. Bush has never had a chance to take him out via direct action.

I believe what was said on Nightline about Clinton as well, that there were two subs sitting of the coast of Pakistan with cruise missiles ready to go, we just never got a good chance to hit Osama.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

That is a good one, let's get revenge on ABC for showing a movie we don't like... nice.

What - something directly out of the Evangelical Right Wing Christian Extremist Play Book?

 

[spidey07]

I watched last night and am recording tonights.

I must say it is the most factual account of events I've ever seen about the whole thing. EVERYBODY should see this. It goes beyond fair and gets the facts out there.

 

[Kanalua]

The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism by Byron York
Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct'

Great reads...everyone on this forums should read these...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I watched last night and am recording tonights.

I must say it is the most factual account of events I've ever seen about the whole thing. EVERYBODY should see this. It goes beyond fair and gets the facts out there.

Ok, spidey. You can stop the charade. That's enough Skoorbing.





Comments from conservative pundits:

Bill O?Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we?re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they?re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn?t say and its wrong. [O?Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]


John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn?t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton?s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06]

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch ?The Reagans.? [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt?s blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that?s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it?s slanderous, I think it?s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06]

Captain?s Quarters blog:
If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it ? and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter?s blog, 9/7/06]

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look, ?The Path to 9/11? is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that?s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn?t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06]

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett?s radio show:

I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald?s blog, 9/7/06]

Richard Miniter, conservative author of ?Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton?s Failures Unleashed Global Terror?:

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there?s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there?s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:
I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism by Byron York
Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct'

Great reads...everyone on this forums should read these...

WND is a massile pile of crap.

 

[spidey07]

Conjur,

This documentary has been picked to pieces by factual sources. It is the defacto standard of the events that took place. Not only that, it is very well done.

Only thing I see are liberals back tracking claiming "unfair! I didn't say that!"

Only to be met with facts.

Facts will be the way. This show shows them in a well produced documentary. Facts will prevail. Watch the documentary.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Conjur,

This documentary has been picked to pieces by factual sources. It is the defacto standard of the events that took place. Not only that, it is very well done.

Only thing I see are liberals back tracking claiming "unfair! I didn't say that!"

Only to be met with facts.

Facts will be the way. This show shows them in a well produced documentary. Facts will prevail. Watch the documentary.

Facts to wingnuts always continue to be this: Lie, repeat the lie, source another liar, repeat the lie once again... poof. Fact.

Screenwriters, actors and consultants have all said that many of the "facts" were just made-up bullsh*t.

The director is a evangelical whackjob and the movie was based on the book, The Cell, by John Miller, who most convieniently is a member of the Bush Administrations PR Department.

Frankly, conservatives don't care about facts and objectivity.

 

[spidey07]

How can you dismiss such a documentary when it has been challenged, re-challenged, proven to be the facts?

That's what I don't get. how you guys refuse to believe facts. It's mind boggling really.

The only reason why libs are upset is it shows how they cannot and will not accept factual reality. It's like they are lost in a cloud, they don't even know that they cannot see through their bias and accept fact.

The documentary is the most factual documentary there is out there. This is undisputed. It's passed muster so to speak, there are no errors in it. Nothing but the facts.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spidey07
How can you dismiss such a documentary when it has been challenged, re-challenged, proven to be the facts?

That's what I don't get. how you guys refuse to believe facts. It's mind boggling really.

The only reason why libs are upset is it shows how they cannot and will not accept factual reality. It's like they are lost in a cloud, they don't even know that they cannot see through their bias and accept fact.

The documentary is the most factual documentary there is out there. This is undisputed. It's passed muster so to speak, there are no errors in it. Nothing but the facts.

I am reminded of John Waynes' propaganda movie "The Green Berets". But I will believe it factual when they run the Reagan mini-series on prime time TV.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Conjur,

This documentary has been picked to pieces by factual sources. It is the defacto standard of the events that took place. Not only that, it is very well done.

Only thing I see are liberals back tracking claiming "unfair! I didn't say that!"

Only to be met with facts.

Facts will be the way. This show shows them in a well produced documentary. Facts will prevail. Watch the documentary.

WTF? Goddamn, spidey, seriously. The Skoorb act is not befitting of you.