There is no doubt that all docu-dramas blur the lines a bit but you cannot deny that the 9/11 commission called Bill Clintons effort on fighting terrorism timid at best. I saw this from the 9/11 commission program that was on Court TV yesterday. Also Buzz Peterson, the guy who carried the Nuclear briefcase for Clinton from 1996 to 1998 said that he witnessed twice in those 2 years where we had OBL and Clinton chose not to respond with the perfect opportunity to capture him. Isn't it funny how the left criticizes and blames Bush for his mistakes but totally chooses to ignore the truth when it comes to the Clinton Administration. The Path to 9/11 was right on the money, that is my understanding. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, will finish sometime this week. Yes, Clinton and his attorneys, everyone else threatened ABC if they ran this, it will be interesting to see what price they say for airing this. Let's remember that all docu-dramas have to say that parts are fictional because they have little segments that are filled in with what could've happened. There's gotta be a reason why Sandy Burglar stole, replaced and then pleaded guilty to a charge for breaking into the national archives. Administrations don't have to do this unless they are trying to revise history or cover something up. Liberals, Welcome to the club, look at the stink they made over this movie. Look at the gutter Bush and the Republicans have been through the last few years, they have survived much worse than this. A movie of a sitting American President killed, really? I wonder how many Bush haters or opposition can't wait to see this movie.
What truth in this film? Someone has to fictionalize an incident to try to make it appear that Clinton may have been slow to take action that may have had an effect of hindering Al Qaida which may have allowed bin ladin to live which may have contributed to 9/11. It's a contrived, fictionized account of a matter whose results are highly speculative anyway. Before 9/11 Clinton tried to kill Bin Ladin twice and failed. Before 9/11 Bush did zero, ziltch, zippo. It's all in the 9/11 Commission report.
oh, you want to embarass yourself again? it is not my fault you cannot tell the difference between the words lie and lying. a lie is simply an untrue statement, lying is the act of deliving an untrue statement as fact. this is so simple, and yet beyond your grasp. truly embarassing. almost beyond embrassing to the point of pitiful and sad.
Blah, blah, blah. What does this stating-the-obvious comment have to do with the film being "nothing but lies"? Zero. You just fall back on lame attempts to discredit the questioner whenever you don't want to explain yourself.
it seems obvious to me but you didnt get it after multiple explanations. i was was pretty disappointed in myself for not being able to make you understand as quickly as i would have liked. finally i realized i was explaining it well enough, you were just obstinately refusing to accept the obvious. i lost some respect for your opinions because of it. all you really cared about was accusing bush of lying. again, i think the only way you could not realize what an incredible stack of lies moore's film is is to actively oppose any knowledge about reality. it surely not a matter of one-sidedness, but purely a matter of dishonesty. i figure that anyone who this is not apparent to is basically a lost cause.
Twice in 8 years.....let's see, that equates to .02083 attempts per month. Zero attempts in 8 months of course gives you an average 0 attempts per month, however, Bush would have still had an additional 40 months in his first term to maintain Clinton's average, if 9/11 had not happened. Technically, I'd have to say it is incorrect to support your argument by using the fact that Clinton made two half-hearted attempts at Bin Laden while being critical of Bush for making none. Purely speculation, of course, but I'd say the odds were pretty good some attempt would have been made during the remainder of GW's first term.
Sorry Red, You are losing the argument here just like the Clinton Administration. Its also in the 9/11 commission report that Clinton was timid at going after OBL, he didn't want to kill civilians because a playground was present so he didn't bomb the area at the time. Clinton didn't respond to Sandy Burglar when the CIA and the Pakistanis had OBL surrounded. This is first hand information from Buzz Peterson who was present with Sandy Burglar at the time. He carried the nuclear football from 1996 to 1998, thats 2 times in 2 years that he dropped the ball. Bottomline, we were attacked at WTC in 1993, they declared war on us and we chose to discount the facts because we didn't realize what the threat really was, lets just admit it, from both administrations. I argue with what the Clinton Administration has said: They said they warned the Bush Administration about the threat Al Quada posed and the Bush Administration chose to ignore it but the Clinton Administration took the threat seriously. The 9/11 commission report said that the Clinton Administration didn't respond to the attack on the USS Cole. The military was attacked and we don't respond? enough said, I rest my case. I will admit the Bush Administration deserves some blame but the Clinton Adminstration had 8 years and was timid at best. Why can't you admit Clinton also deserves some of the blame? Why ignore what the 9/11 Commission says about the Clinton Administration?
Zero is zero, chief. What makes the attempts "half-hearted" anyway. Over two hundred cruise missiles were used and the camps were completely destroyed. Our good friends the Pakistanis tipped bin Ladin off or he would be dead. America had not been attacked on our own turf when this happened, these were retaliations for the USS Cole and African embassy bombings which were tied to Al Qaida. Clinton promptly attacked them. When Sourdough whines that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 he is being completely absurd and thoughtless. Clinton is the only President that recognized Bin Ladin as a threat and took action before 9/11. Purely speculation, of course. :grin:
Listen to yourself. This was pre-9/11, we wanted to killl bin ladin, not Afghan children. The WTC 1993 Bombers were caught, prosecuted, and jailed. Did you forget that or are you just being intentionally dishonest? There is nothing to argue with. Richard Clark was the National Terrorism Chief for both presidents and he couldn't even get a meeting with Bush before 9/11. He testified under oath that Bush did nothing. Condi Rice admitted under oath that they had received a memo specifically stating that Bin Ladin posed a direct threat to the US, but they took no action. You read the 9/11 report and only see what you want to see. Only that's not what the report said! The Cole was attacked in October 2000 a month before George W. Bush won the election. The investigation was not completed before Bush took office. And he did nothing at all about it when he assumed responsibility. There was no American strike. In February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to Bin Ladin) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, Bin Ladin wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger. --9/11 Commission Report, page 191 Who was President in February 2001? I rest my case. Military retaliatory strikes are not timid, wake up and realize that movie was fictional. Osama bin Ladin was responsible for 9/11. Not Bush, not Clinton . . . bin Ladin. Your partisan politics and hero-worship of George Bush has blinded you to reality.
