"Path to 9/11"

[Radar Chief]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24042

ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'
By Govindini Murty
LIBERTAS | August 25, 2006
I recently attended an advance screening of ABC’s outstanding, epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and I came away enormously impressed. Writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), director David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"), and the whole production team have done a magnificent job in presenting the complex events leading up to 9/11 with accuracy, fairness, and artistry.

The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. "The Path to 9/11" is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book, "The Cell." ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11.

Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.

The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the “wall” put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O’Neil present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects - some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O’Neil protests that it’s impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won’t provide any information whatsoever on them. When O’Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O’Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O’Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

Continued 1st post.

[Radar Chief]

The acting is also excellent in "The Path to 9/11." Harvey Keitel is strong, sympathetic, and quirky as FBI agent John O’Neil, and Donnie Wahlberg is also sympathetic and believable as CIA agent “Kirk.” The standouts though are the wonderful South Asian and Middle Eastern actors who play both the heroes who help the U.S., and the terrorists out to destroy it. The actor playing Ishtiak, the Pakistani informant who helps the CIA capture Ramzi Youssef, is terrific. Played by newcomer Prassana Puwanarajah, Ishtiak is a shy, unassuming figure who makes a very unexpected -- but very sympathetic -- hero. The Ishtiak character tells the CIA that he's helping them because he is a scholar, and morally and philosophically he does not believe in the destruction of innocent life. Ishtiak risks his life, and the life of his young wife and baby, to help the U.S. capture Ramzi Youssef and thwart his terrorist plans. The Ishtiak sequence is one of the most moving segments of the miniseries. The producers told me that the actor playing Ishtiak is actually a doctor living in London, who does theater on the side.

The actor playing Ahmed Shah Massoud (the heroic leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and one of America’s strongest allies in that area) is also an inspired piece of casting. Actor Mido Hamada looks remarkably like Massoud, and is highly effective at playing the noble and charismatic leader. The producers informed me that Hamada, who is quite handsome, has been the particular favorite of ladies at the advance screenings. The Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban are also very well cast. The actors playing Ramzi Youssef (Nabil Elouhabi of "Eastenders"), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Michael Benyaer of "24"), and Mohammed Atta (Martin Brody) do a fine job portraying characters who are three dimensional and non-stereotypical in their villainy.

"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood’s depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we’re in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses. FrontPage Magazine ran an excellent interview recently with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make clear why I’m so excited about this miniseries:

"Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes “how we got there” going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O’Neill and others, who after the Œ93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks ‹ but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response ‹ or lack of response ‹ to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.


Rest in 2nd post.

[Radar Chief]

"The Path to 9/11" does a tremendous job in bringing to life the complex web of international characters and organizations that lay behind the events of that tragic day. ABC has created a miniseries that is truly epic in scope - a richly textured tapestry that weaves together a fascinating array of people, places, organizations and events both here in America and around the world. I was impressed by how vivid every character was, however briefly he or she may have been on the screen - and how quickly, clearly, and economically Nowrasteh and Cunningham depicted complex events. I absolutely loved the on-location work they did, and the great character actors of every nationality that they brought together. Cyrus Nowrasteh's background as an Iranian-American seems in particular to have given him a special insight into both the Middle-Eastern and American aspects of the story. Director David Cunningham, the son of a missionary, also brings an obvious love of foreign cultures and locales to his direction. The result is an engrossing, atmospheric tale of foreign intrigue. It was fascinating to see the crowded urban slums of Pakistan where the CIA captured Ramzi Youssef, the desert fortresses of the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Manila nightclubs where the 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks, the Tanzanian locales where the embassies were blown up, the meetings of the terrorists in Spain, and the various locations across America where the conspiracy comes together.

Let me wrap up by saying that what I truly loved about "The Path to 9/11"
was the following: the honesty with which it told the story behind 9/11 with all its political ramifications; the epic scope and sweep of the story; the vivid and interesting characters of all nationalities; the great use of international locations; the terrific use of ethnic source music in tying the segments together and giving the miniseries a musical, propulsive pace (often reminding me of the musical quality of such 1940s Warner Brothers classics as "Casablanca" and "The Sea Hawk"); and the outstanding cinematography and editing (the miniseries has a great documentary-realist style that comes from director David Cunningham’s background as a documentarian). Cyrus Nowrasteh tells me that they had five cameras shooting at all times, which accounts for the great natural moments they caught between the actors, and the swift pace of the storytelling.

Overall, I thought "The Path to 9/11" was infinitely better than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" (granted, Stone decided to tell a narrower story), and if this is properly marketed, ABC should have a huge hit on its hands. The problem is that I don’t see ABC marketing it at all, and I’m concerned that they’re dropping the ball on getting the word out about this show. They’ve reportedly spent more than $40 million producing "The Path to 9/11," and yet I see little advertising or promotion anywhere. Conservatives need to really step in here and spread the word via talk radio and the internet. Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. "The Path to 9/11" should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there - if Hollywood is willing to be fair and open-minded.

I’m highly encouraged by the ad that 84 Hollywood filmmakers and celebrities took out on August 17 in the Los Angeles Times denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah, and I’m thrilled by this ABC miniseries. I hope this heralds a new, saner approach on the part of Hollywood toward the world-wide problem of Islamo-fascism -- one that recognizes Islamic terrorism for what it is, and is willing to denounce it so that better things, such as democracy, civil rights, women’s rights, and free speech -- can take its place. These are issues that all conservatives and liberals can get behind, and I’m glad to see that the entertainment industry is finally, at least in these two instances, uniting for the greater good of this country and for the noble cause of democracy around the world.

[jAZ]

Have you read anything other than this article on this little bit of info-tainment?

[Radar Chief]

Have you read anything other than this article on this little bit of info-tainment?

No.
And after reread’n it, I probably could’ve posted highlights. It’s more op-ed than I first thought.

[jAZ]

"...conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible."

That quote properly sets the tone for any discussion of this movie from what I've read.

And any notion of a world of "liberal media bias" is central to the discussion as well.

[Radar Chief]

"...conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible."

That quote properly sets the tone for any discussion of this movie from what I've read.


What else have you read? :shrug:

And any notion of a world of "liberal media bias" is central to the discussion as well.

Funny, but if not for Rush read’n this review on his show, IIRC, Friday I wouldn’t even know ‘bout it or to search it up when I had time. :shrug:

[Chiefnj]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/

Apparently the writers have taken some liberties.

I wonder if they find WMD's??

[jAZ]

No.
And after reread’n it, I probably could’ve posted highlights. It’s more op-ed than I first thought.
The miniseries is a propaganda piece put together by a a conservative advocate... and funded by ABC... and aired without commercials.

Imagine a conservative Farenheight 9/11 but paid for by ABC and aired without commerical funding.

ABC just paid $40 million in cash and another $XX million in foregone funding in order to air an admittedly non-factual work of conservative propaganda in prime-time during the lead up to a major election.

A work that supposedly places blame for 9/11 on Clinton rather than Bush (something that even conservatives here balk at doing).

I'm shocked this thread wasn't created before today because this has been in the blog-talk world for a few days.

And this little bit of of "op-ed" is the result of an organized media blitz to promote the work of fiction being aired on ABC at a massive loss with no intention of doing anything but losing money in an effort to get this work of pro-conservative fiction on the air.

I'm sure shareholders are really happy about this.

[jAZ]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/

Writer of ABC’s 9/11 ‘Docudrama’ Is Avowed Conservative Activist
ABC will air a “docudrama” next weekend called “The Path to 9/11″ which blames President Clinton for the 9/11 attacks while praising President Bush.

The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,” and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag.

The problem isn’t that Nowrasteh is conservative. The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing “The Path to 9/11″ as an unbiased historical drama. Promos for the movie say it is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” Nowrasteh claims he “wanted to match the just-the-facts tone of the report,” and describes the project as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

Here’s some of the objectivity you can expect: Nowrasteh says the film shows how Clinton had “frequent opportunities…in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.” He has referenced Clinton’s “lack of response” to Al Qaeda “and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests.” A review today in Salon.com says the film paints Clinton “as a buffoon more interested in blow jobs than terrorists.”

[Baby Lee]

Who do we get today, 'metaphysical truth' jAZ, or 'not as yet completely debunked avenue of hypothesis' jAZ?

I wonder, I wonder.

[Radar Chief]

Thanks for the responses.
I notice you both posted links to thinkprogress.org. Do you find this any less biased than the frontpagemag.com article I linked?

[jAZ]

Who do we get today, 'metaphysical truth' jAZ, or 'not as yet completely debunked avenue of hypothesis' jAZ?

I wonder, I wonder.
Oddly enough, it appears that the "I've got nothing to rebut here, but I've got to post *SOMETHING*" Baby Lee has made an appearance.

*shocking*

[jAZ]

Thanks for the responses.
I notice you both posted links to thinkprogress.org. Do you find this any less biased than the frontpagemag.com article I linked?
I posted a link I found in his link. Thought it was worth highlighting.

I'd say Richard "I worked for Bush, Clinton and Bush II" Clarke saying that this guy completely fabricated one of the scenes being promoted by Rush Limbaugh... is pretty objective.

You'll note that they sourced their articles with quite a few links to check out.

[jAZ]

I'm curious what people (DC Cons) think about ABC's role in this whole thing.

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentary created by a Conservative Activist who's admittedly trying to manipulate the media to promote his conservative agenda during an election cycle and doing so at a loss of $40+ million dollars.

And not a peep in the mainstream media.

Not a word in the DC until today.

Can you image the outrage and 200 post threads we'd have in here had it been a Micheal Moore project being handled this way?

[Chiefnj]

Thanks for the responses.
I notice you both posted links to thinkprogress.org. Do you find this any less biased than the frontpagemag.com article I linked?

Nope. Both websites are biased.

I posted it because it had the link to Clarke's statement regarding inaccuracies in the movie. Is Clarke biased? It seems that his statements are truthful.

In truth, it seems pretty absurd that the CIA and Northern Alliance would be sitting outside Bin Laden's home, weapons pointed at the windows and doors and then call the whitehouse for approval. Did the guy who placed the call have a direct number or did he have to listen to a long list of prompts - Welcome to the Whitehouse, press 1 for visiting hours, press 2 if you are with the CIA and are about to kill a terrorist operative but need last minute clearance, press 3 for directions ...

[Mr. Kotter]

...This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent...

If this is true..... wow. :eek:

Just wow. :shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

Thanks for the responses.
I notice you both posted links to thinkprogress.org. Do you find this any less biased than the frontpagemag.com article I linked?

I'm sure the true measure of irony in that fact escapes jAZ......completely. :shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm curious what people (DC Cons) think about ABC's role in this whole thing.

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentary created by a Conservative Activist who's admittedly trying to manipulate the media to promote his conservative agenda during an election cycle and doing so at a loss of $40+ million dollars.

And not a peep in the mainstream media.

Not a word in the DC until today.

Can you image the outrage and 200 post threads we'd have in here had it been a Micheal Moore project being handled this way?

Yeah, Moore didn't try to influence anyone in the last election either....did he? And neither has media complicity with his works, and those of groups like moveon.org...... :rolleyes:

[jAZ]

If this is true..... wow. :eek:

Just wow. :shake:
It's a lie.

[Adept Havelock]

Yeah, Moore didn't try to influence anyone in the last election either....did he? And neither has media complicity with his works, and those of groups like moveon.org...... :rolleyes:

I didn't pay much attention when it came out, but I must have missed it when Farenhype 9/11 was broadcast commercial free on network TV two months before national elections.

None of which negates the truth of jAZ's point. If this was a Moore-sponsored lefty wankfest this forum would be full of bitching about it. Instead, it's a righty wankfest...

As for me, I'm not wasting my time with it. The Right Wing version of the recent Katrina miniseries. It's just another weak effort like "9-11 Day of Decision" Showtime did a while back. The only difference is that this one is on Network TV, and being peddled to schools around the country.

Personally, I've always felt there was a lot of blame to spread around for 9/11, going back to Reagan and Carter. JMO.

[jAZ]

Yeah, Moore didn't try to influence anyone in the last election either....did he? And neither has media complicity with his works, and those of groups like moveon.org...... :rolleyes:
Keep up...

[jAZ]

Does anyone here remeber the outrage and massive blow up that occured with one of the three networks (CBS, I think?) did a movie of the week on Ronald Ragen that was not completely glowing?

Word got out and the shit-storm caused the network to pull it and move it to Showtime (IIRC).

[Baby Lee]

Does anyone here remeber the outrage and massive blow up that occured with one of the three networks (CBS, I think?) did a movie of the week on Ronald Ragen that was not completely glowing?

Word got out and the shit-storm caused the network to pull it and move it to Showtime (IIRC).
Yes, I think there was a Million Man March, and armed confrontations with the National Guard, dogs and cats living together, a rip in the space/time continuum.
Oh wait, a few people said "sounds like BS, I probably won't watch it," and and the network sent it to Showtime.

They had Mr. Babs Streisand playing Reagan, fer chrissakes. double A - beep beep - MCO.

What, does this show have Rush Limbaugh playing Bubba?

Oh, and re: this mini-series "sounds like BS, I probably won't watch it." ;) - BOOM!!!!OMGWTF!!!one!one1eleven111!!!

[WilliamTheIrish]

I'm shocked this thread wasn't created before today because this has been in the blog-talk world for a few days.

Maybe you shouldn't be so shocked. I never heard of the damn thing till yesterday (Sunday). But I've got Sirius radio and that's all I've been doing the whole month.

Plus, I'm just not real interested in 'celebrating' the whole 9-11 thing with another movie that's supposed to tell me the 'true story.'

**** that. I've got better things to do.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's a lie.

Linky-link? Preferably, non-moonbat linky-link....:)

[BucEyedPea]

Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

I disagree with this line because it doesn't prove anything about the Patriot Act being crucial, but simply shows how repealing certain laws on intel sharing was all that was necessary. It shows how less bureaucracy works better then more...and how a massive Homeland Security dept isn't the answer either. Our system worked but needed some reform was all.

Other than that, this type of surgical removal of binLaden is the type of operation I do approve of our govt doing. It shows that our govt is capable of doing it too with wise leadership. Just because Clinton didn't do it, which he should have, doesn't mean Bush's diversions are exempt from blame either. Quite the reverse.

[jAZ]

Linky-link? Preferably, non-moonbat linky-link....:)
Have you bothered to read what's already been posted in this thread? I'm not walking you through all the basics. If you aren't going to bother to read the thread, then don't bother posting your uninformed commentary.

I'll give you one hint.

Post #8.

[jAZ]

I've *NEVER* seen anything quite so boldly propagandistic. It's not a for-profit venture, they spend $40 million to hire a Conservative Activist (a lesser known version of Michael Moore) to put together faux-documentary... so flawed that they have to revise their marketing and begin to call it a "docudrama"... Not only do they give away 2 nights worth of prime-time ad revenue, but they also spend at least $37,000 to (directly) promote these lies to school kids... and then give away the content they paid $40M for on iTunes and free download online?

This is downright creepy. I'd be pissed if I was a Disney shareholder watching this sort of business management.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/abc-distribution/

ABC Planning Massive Free Distribution of 9/11 Docudrama

ABC is planning a massive free distribution of its planned docudrama The Path to 9/11, including sending letters to 100,000 high school teachers encouraging them to have their students watch the series. Variety magazine reports:

[ABC is] allowing consumers to download the complete miniseries — for free — via Apple’s iTunes Music Store. Mini also will be streamed for free via ABC.com, and XM Radio has pacted with the network to make an audiocast of the film available to its subscribers. […]

To spread the word about “Path to 9/11,” ABC is sending 100,000 high school educators a letter from 9/11 Commission co-chair Tom Keane informing them of the various platforms on which the mini is available. ABC and Scholastic have pacted to produce an online study guide.

ABC has also made deals to have the docudrama aired internationally, including in Britain on BBC and in India.

Most American high school students weren’t even teenagers when the 9/11 attacks occured. Now ABC is trying to present those students — and scores of people around the world — with its slanted and inaccurate version of history, which blames President Clinton for 9/11 while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration. The events leading up to September 11, 2001 are too important to play politics with the facts.

[jAZ]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115741601128096709

Disney and The Dobsonites

by digby

Are Disney and ABC becoming willing tools of the right wing? Or are they simply currying favor with James Dobson and the far right out corporate necessity? Either way, something very strange is happening in Mouseland.

Earlier this year, you'll remember that they cancelled, at the last minute, a reality TV show called "Welcome To The Neighborhood" which featured a gay couple competing for a house. The NY Times reported:



Ten days before the first episode was to be shown, ABC executives canceled Welcome to the Neighborhood, saying that they were concerned that viewers who might have been appalled at some early statements made in the show --including homophobic barbs --might not hang in for the sixth episode, when several of those same neighbors pronounced themselves newly open-minded about gays and other groups.

ABC acted amid protests by the National Fair Housing Alliance, which had expressed concern about a competition in which race, religion and sexual orientation were discussed as factors in the awarding of a house. But two producers of the show, speaking publicly about the cancellation for the first time, say the network was confident it had the legal standing to give away a house as a game-show prize. One, Bill Kennedy, a co-executive producer who helped develop the series with his son, Eric, suggested an alternative explanation. He said that the protests might have been most significant as a diversion that allowed the Walt Disney Company, ABC's owner, to pre-empt a show that could have interfered with a much bigger enterprise: the courting of evangelical Christian audiences for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Disney hoped that the film, widely viewed as a parable of the Resurrection, would be the first in a profitable movie franchise.

In the months and weeks before Welcome to the Neighborhood was to have its premiere, as Disney sought to build church support for Narnia, four religious groups lifted longtime boycotts of the company that had been largely prompted by Disney's tolerance of periodic gatherings by gay tourists at its theme parks. Representatives for two of those groups now say that broadcasting Neighborhood could have complicated their support for Narnia. One, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members, lifted the last of the boycotts against Disney on June 22, a week before ABC announced it was pulling the series.

[...]

Asked whether Disney's plans for Narnia had affected Neighborhood, Mr. Brockman of ABC referred a reporter to comments made on July 26 by Stephen McPherson, the president of ABC Entertainment, to a gathering of television critics. At that time it was not widely known that a gay couple had won the competition. Instead, Mr. McPherson, a champion of the show until its sudden cancellation, was asked if he had been influenced by criticism by civil rights groups.

"If I stopped airing things just because advocacy groups had issues with it, we would run a test pattern," Mr. McPherson said. Rather, he said, he had begun to worry that some of the neighbors' most intolerant statements early on could confuse the audience's understanding of "the message you were trying to get across."

Right. Mr. McPherson, very slickly avoided the question of whether it was pressure from the religious right and implied it was done for the benefit of gays, which is not credible --- particularly since we know that he hired a religious cultist to direct his 40 million dollar mini-series "The Path To 9/11" written by a well known, far right wing writer.

David Cunningham, the young director, is the son of a famous leader of a controversial evangelical youth ministry called Youth With A Mission. It has been heavily criticized over the years for its authoritarian teachings and cultlike attributes. Cunningham's alma mater is the YWAM "college" called the University of Nations, which teaches filmmaking as a way to spread the gospel. Some members of the group even worked on the film.

Cunningham has worked with other members of the religious right in Hollywood with the intention of spreading the word. His previous film, received ecstatically in the Christian right community, was called "To End All Wars"* produced by Jack Hafer, a fellow religious rightist. Cunningham was chosen as one of the 30 emerging voices who are the "future of the American church" by Charisma Magazine. He's quoted saying:



“My life's mission is to challenge and shape culture through film.”


The writer of this project, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a well documented rightwing filmmaker:


"To quote Team America, he’s [Michael Moore] an out of control socialist weasel." —Interview, June 9, 2005.

There is obviously nothing wrong with these conservative activists making films. There have always been those with a conservative point of view in Hollywood; studio bosses and network executives tend to be conservative in all senses of the word. But it is more than a little bit odd that ABC chose this particular creative duo to develop and film a hugely expensive six hour mini-series about the political culpability for 9/11. You'd think they could have found some people who were less politically invested in a particular point of view than these two.

It's even more odd that they have gone such great lengths to advertise it as being based upon the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report when, in fact, they optioned two other books as sources for the film, one of which is widely touted on the right. Therefore, the series is quite obviously a compilation of several sources and the product of the worldview of its rightwing creative team. In other words it is a work of fiction. To advertise it as being "based" on the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud on the public.

And now they have announced that they will not show advertising on this big 40 million dollar investment and will distribute it for free to 100,000 educators around the country and on i-tunes. It's basically a gift to the Republican party and the conservative movement.

What is going on over at Disney/ABC? Are they selling out their shareholders to a small shadowy group of Hollywood rightwingers because they share their worldview? Or is it just a gambit for Disney to keep Focus on the Family on their side as they roll out the "Narnia" franchise? Has Disney been so successfully mau-maued by the religious right that they are now in the business of blatantly propping up the Republican Party on its behalf?

Whatever it is, it's quite clear that they are determined to make the nation believe this work of fiction is a credible depiction of the events leading up to 9/11 when it is quite clearly a biased political drama written with the intention of making the Clinton administration culpable for the attacks in the minds of Americans. They chose people with a politiical and cultural agenda to make this film and have been dishonest in promoting it.

What is going on over at Disney?

[jAZ]

Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

Republicans were against this before they were for it...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

[patteeu]

I'm curious what people (DC Cons) think about ABC's role in this whole thing.

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentary created by a Conservative Activist who's admittedly trying to manipulate the media to promote his conservative agenda during an election cycle and doing so at a loss of $40+ million dollars.

And not a peep in the mainstream media.

Not a word in the DC until today.

Can you image the outrage and 200 post threads we'd have in here had it been a Micheal Moore project being handled this way?

Your attempt to characterize this movie as the flip side to a Michael Moore fantasy flick is funny. I'm getting a good laugh at your apparent desperation.

From what I see/read, this isn't a pro-Bush, pro-Republican movie. It is a movie that points out the problems with the pre-9/11 bureaucracy and it's sluggishness at being able to adequately identify and handle the threat posed by islamofascist terrorism. That the majority of that period happens to coincide with the Clinton administration is just coincidental. I could easily see a Republican administration making similarly tragic decisions and, in fact, the pre-9/11 Bush administration didn't fair much better than Clinton. IMO, what it does point out, though, is the lack of truth behind the claims of democrats that Clinton was on top of the terror issue and that it was Bush who let everything fall through the cracks making 9/11 possible. It also should remind us that a return to pre-9/11 thinking would be a big mistake.

[patteeu]

Nope. Both websites are biased.

I posted it because it had the link to Clarke's statement regarding inaccuracies in the movie. Is Clarke biased? It seems that his statements are truthful.

Yes, he is.


In truth, it seems pretty absurd that the CIA and Northern Alliance would be sitting outside Bin Laden's home, weapons pointed at the windows and doors and then call the whitehouse for approval. Did the guy who placed the call have a direct number or did he have to listen to a long list of prompts - Welcome to the Whitehouse, press 1 for visiting hours, press 2 if you are with the CIA and are about to kill a terrorist operative but need last minute clearance, press 3 for directions ...

Are you serious?

[patteeu]

It's a lie.

For you to claim that you know one way or the other would be a lie.

[patteeu]

I didn't pay much attention when it came out, but I must have missed it when Farenhype 9/11 was broadcast commercial free on network TV two months before national elections.

None of which negates the truth of jAZ's point. If this was a Moore-sponsored lefty wankfest this forum would be full of bitching about it. Instead, it's a righty wankfest...

As for me, I'm not wasting my time with it. The Right Wing version of the recent Katrina miniseries. It's just another weak effort like "9-11 Day of Decision" Showtime did a while back. The only difference is that this one is on Network TV, and being peddled to schools around the country.

Personally, I've always felt there was a lot of blame to spread around for 9/11, going back to Reagan and Carter. JMO.

On what do you base your conclusion that this film is a "righty wankfest" or the "Right Wing version of the recent Katrina miniseries?"

[BucEyedPea]

On what do you base your conclusion that this film is a "righty wankfest" or the "Right Wing version of the recent Katrina miniseries?"
Since he said IMO, he can base it on personal observation or gut feel if he wants.

[jAZ]

For you to claim that you know one way or the other would be a lie.
Post #8.

[Mr. Kotter]

Have you bothered to read what's already been posted in this thread? I'm not walking you through all the basics. If you aren't going to bother to read the thread, then don't bother posting your uninformed commentary.

I'll give you one hint.

Post #8.

Someone CREDIBLE to "prove" it is a lie would be nice.

"ThinkProgress.Moonbats.com" doesn't fill the bill.....:)

[WilliamTheIrish]

Republicans were against this before they were for it...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Democrats were for it, before they were against it.

[patteeu]

Since he said IMO, he can base it on personal observation or gut feel if he wants.

No doubt, that's all it's based on, but my real question was whether his gut feel is based on observations limited to what he's read in this thread or if he has additional information that he could share with us. BTW, IMO there isn't much in this thread on which to base his conclusion.

[patteeu]

For you to claim that you know one way or the other would be a lie.

Post #8.

Whoopty do. Richard Clarke disputes it so it must be a lie, right? LMAO

There is, of course, a second possibility.

[patteeu]

Republicans were against this before they were for it...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

It's far more damning for dems to switch from support to opposition in the face of a growing threat than it is for Republicans to switch in the opposite direction.

[BucEyedPea]

No doubt, that's all it's based on, but my real question was whether his gut feel is based on observations limited to what he's read in this thread or if he has additional information that he could share with us. BTW, IMO there isn't much in this thread on which to base his conclusion.
Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion as well. I mean really, what one thinks of a TV program is pure opinion. Purely subjective in nature.

No need for a prosecution...imo. ROFL

[stevieray]

Democrats were for it, before they were against it.

and therein lies the rub.

[jAZ]

Whoopty do. Richard Clarke disputes it so it must be a lie, right? LMAO

There is, of course, a second possibility.
Are you guys so desperate that you would pretend to read the contents of a link provided so that you can dismiss it without actually bothering to read the whole thing... or *gasp* following the sourced links provided within?
Someone CREDIBLE to "prove" it is a lie would be nice.

"ThinkProgress.Moonbats.com" doesn't fill the bill.....:)
I guess so...

Sad, shameful, pathetic guys. How it must suck to have reality collapsing in around your fantasy land.

[Ultra Peanut]

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentaryTHAT IS NOT A WORD.

[patteeu]

Are you guys so desperate that you would pretend to read the contents of a link provided so that you can dismiss it without actually bothering to read the whole thing... or *gasp* following the sourced links provided within?

These vague allusions to information at the other end of your link that substantiates your take on this movie are nothing but handwaving. Did they teach this technique to you at political spin school?

There is nothing more behind your link than the competing claims of Richard Clarke and a couple of his underlings who were Clinton appointees to the NSC and who obviously have the same incentive that Clarke has to put lipstick on their pre-9/11 anti-terror actions.

Think Progress may or may not be able to find some nits to pick with the details of this movie (it is a docudrama afterall) like whether or not the head of the Northern Alliance was actually present at a particular time or whether or not bin Laden was actually seen by a CIA operative as opposed to an informant, but that doesn't disprove the broader allegations of relative inaction. I'm not saying that I know that the movie is right on this score, I'm just saying that you don't know it's wrong. It's a matter of faith for you, nothing more.

[Radar Chief]

I posted a link I found in his link. Thought it was worth highlighting.

I'd say Richard "I worked for Bush, Clinton and Bush II" Clarke saying that this guy completely fabricated one of the scenes being promoted by Rush Limbaugh... is pretty objective.

Nope. Both websites are biased.

I posted it because it had the link to Clarke's statement regarding inaccuracies in the movie. Is Clarke biased? It seems that his statements are truthful.

That’s cool guys. I was just wonder’n how you guys wound up with links to different articles from the same site. Whether you did a search and that’s where the information was found or if you read the site as a source of unbiased information.
Guess I could’ve worded my question a little less accusingly.

In truth, it seems pretty absurd that the CIA and Northern Alliance would be sitting outside Bin Laden's home, weapons pointed at the windows and doors and then call the whitehouse for approval. Did the guy who placed the call have a direct number or did he have to listen to a long list of prompts - Welcome to the Whitehouse, press 1 for visiting hours, press 2 if you are with the CIA and are about to kill a terrorist operative but need last minute clearance, press 3 for directions ...

That they’d seek executive approval before using deadly force? :spock: That actually sounds more like SOP (Standard Operational Procedure) to me. :shrug:

You'll note that they sourced their articles with quite a few links to check out.

Yea, I followed some of those links. Some direct you back to articles created on their site, some lead to blogs. Though, I did find this interesting.

Cyrus Nowrasteh….He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,”

Then when you follow the link, what he actually said was:

CN: To quote Team America, he’s an out of control socialist weasel (laughs). Listen. I’m probably more of a libertarian than a strict conservative. In my writing and directing, I don’t want to just be a conservative version of Michael Moore. I’m here to tell a good story first and foremost - and that’s why I can navigate the networks and get my work produced.

Damn that context. ROFL

Doesn’t necessarily matter in this case though, I agree with Clarke that this particular scene appears made up. At least it isn’t in the 9/11 Commission report that I’ve read. Though, there are plenty of instances of Billary drop’n the ball, or refusing the hand off :rolleyes:, this particular scene isn’t accurate from what I know/have read.

[Chiefnj]

That they’d seek executive approval before using deadly force? :spock: That actually sounds more like SOP (Standard Operational Procedure) to me. :shrug:

Doesn’t necessarily matter in this case though, I agree with Clarke that this particular scene appears made up. At least it isn’t in the 9/11 Commission report that I’ve read. Though, there are plenty of instances of Billary drop’n the ball, or refusing the hand off :rolleyes:, this particular scene isn’t accurate from what I know/have read.


I would think there was some type of executive approval at the beginning, not after they hunted him down, etc. Who knows what or where the President would be when they finally located UBL and how long of a window they'd have.

I'm not sure why others can't accept the fact that the scene was made up and is not part of the Commission Report.

[Radar Chief]

I'm curious what people (DC Cons) think about ABC's role in this whole thing.

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentary created by a Conservative Activist who's admittedly trying to manipulate the media to promote his conservative agenda during an election cycle and doing so at a loss of $40+ million dollars.

And not a peep in the mainstream media.

Not a word in the DC until today.

Can you image the outrage and 200 post threads we'd have in here had it been a Micheal Moore project being handled this way?

Exactly. I wouldn’t even know ‘bout it if I hadn’t heard Rush talk’n ‘bout it on his show Friday. Then I had to search it up.
When “Fahrenhiet 9/11” hit the theaters I saw it advertised all over the place, including prime time TV. Why no word of this? You’d think with all that money out of pocket they’d pimp the chit out of it. Why did I have to search it up on a conservative “news” site to read anything ‘bout it?
I guess I’m just not see’n this “media blitz” you’re talk’n ‘bout, jAZ.

[Radar Chief]

I would think there was some type of executive approval at the beginning, not after they hunted him down, etc. Who knows what or where the President would be when they finally located UBL and how long of a window they'd have.

I'm not sure why others can't accept the fact that the scene was made up and is not part of the Commission Report.

I’d assume they’d head out with some Rules of Engagement, but who knows how it’d play out once they found’im. Particularly since these guys tent to surround themselves with women and children specifically so they can point to the collateral damage if/when they’re attacked.
But really, we’re not even talk’n ‘bout an actual event here, so we’re both waste’n bandwidth on supposition.

[Robo-Chachi]

Someone CREDIBLE to "prove" it is a lie would be nice.

"ThinkProgress.Moonbats.com" doesn't fill the bill.....:)

Why does Kaz have to provide anything to dispute a claim made IN A FREAKING MOVIE?

"If TV said it, it must be true!"

[jAZ]

Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden...
If this is true..... wow. :eek:
It's a lie.
Linky-link? Preferably, non-moonbat linky-link....:)
I'll give you one hint.

Post #8.
For you to claim that you know one way or the other would be a lie.
Post #8.
Someone CREDIBLE to "prove" it is a lie would be nice.

"ThinkProgress.Moonbats.com" doesn't fill the bill.....:)
Whoopty do. Richard Clarke disputes it so it must be a lie, right? LMAO.
Are you guys so desperate that you would pretend to read the contents of a link provided so that you can dismiss it without actually bothering to read the whole thing... or *gasp* following the sourced links provided within?
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm
According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
I'll repeat it again...

Sad, shameful, pathetic guys. How it must suck to have reality collapsing in around your fantasy land.

[Mr. Kotter]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htmAccording to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”I'll repeat it again...

Sad, shameful, pathetic guys. How it must suck to have reality collapsing in around your fantasy land.You are missing the point.

There could be a "standing order" to kill Bin Laden; however, given the circumstances in this case, it sounds as if.....when given the specific opportunity to capture him, they sought express and explicit "permission" in the particulars of THAT case--which would reinforce or contravene the "standing order."

Do you have specific knowledge or citation that he did NOT deny permission in this specific instance?

It's kinda like Bush saying, "we will fire anyone who leaks to the press," on the one hand. But if when a leak occurs, deciding the particulars of the case didn't warrant following his announced "policy"....

I find both situations to be disturbing (if they are true)....meanwhile you are willing to hold Bush accountable for his 'exception' to policy, but refusing to recognize Clinton may have made an 'exception' to policy....in this case.

[jAZ]

Do you have specific knowledge or citation that he did NOT deny permission in this specific instance?
Let's see if we can put our 3rd grade read skills to work together.
"Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."
What does "every request" mean? I'll venture to guess it means that there was not any request ever in any "specific instance" that was put to him that he didn't approve.

Ever.

Do you realize how embarrassing it is for you to be able to read but to be so politically shaded that everyone and their mother is able to laugh at your's and patteeu's shrieking desperate attempt to find even the slimmest, tiniest crack to grab hold of... only to plummet to the bottom when reality comes crashing in on your fantasy land?

Comedy Gold. ROFL

[patteeu]

I would think there was some type of executive approval at the beginning, not after they hunted him down, etc. Who knows what or where the President would be when they finally located UBL and how long of a window they'd have.

I'm not sure why others can't accept the fact that the scene was made up and is not part of the Commission Report.

The details of the scene might not be completely accurate, but the fact that a detailed plan to capture bin Laden at his compound in Afghanistan with the help of Northern Alliance allies was in place and that it was nixed by high level Clinton administration officials is definitely in the Commission Report.

[patteeu]

Why does Kaz have to provide anything to dispute a claim made IN A FREAKING MOVIE?

"If TV said it, it must be true!"

Because jAZ said it was a lie as if he knew this to be the case.

"If jAZ said it, it must be true!"

[Chiefnj]

Kotter,

Where is your proof that this issue is true? Where is it in the Commission report?

[Robo-Chachi]

Is there anything else making this claim besides a TV miniseries?

[Chiefnj]

Is there anything else making this claim besides a TV miniseries?

Kotter and Patteeu.

[Robo-Chachi]

Because jAZ said it was a lie as if he knew this to be the case.

"If jAZ said it, it must be true!"

There's this thing called the burden of proof. Jaz doesn't have to prove it is a lie. Why don't you guys or the makers of this movie prove it is true?

[Mr. Kotter]

Kotter,

Where is your proof that this issue is true? Where is it in the Commission report?

I've not claimed conclusive knowledge of whether it happened or not--jAZ is the only one who seems "certain" one way or the other.

I'm only saying if it did happen, I would be shocked....and we all should be.

I'd say, we need to put Sandy Berger under oath on the matter to determine who is right. :shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

There's this thing called the burden of proof. Jaz doesn't have to prove it is a lie. Why don't you guys or the makers of this movie prove it is true?That's why Berger (and others involved should be put under oath.... :shrug:

[patteeu]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm
According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
I'll repeat it again...

Sad, shameful, pathetic guys. How it must suck to have reality collapsing in around your fantasy land.

Even if true, and I'm not disputing it, Tenet having the authority to kill bin Laden doesn't prove that the statement originally highlighted by Mr. Kotter is a lie (as you've asserted). Maybe you need to reread post #17 and then come up with a different angle. And while you're at it, maybe you should read the Commission's report instead of relying on ThinkProgress to read it for you.

[Robo-Chachi]

I've not claimed conclusive knowledge of whether it happened or not--jAZ is the only one who seems "certain" one way or the other.

I'm only saying if it did happen, I would be shocked....and we all should be.

I'd say, we need to put Sandy Berger under oath on the matter to determine who is right. :shrug:


So based on a mini-series, we need to start having testimonies on this?

[patteeu]

You are missing the point.

There could be a "standing order" to kill Bin Laden; however, given the circumstances in this case, it sounds as if.....when given the specific opportunity to capture him, they sought express and explicit "permission" in the particulars of THAT case--which would reinforce or contravene the "standing order."

Do you have specific knowledge or citation that he did NOT deny permission in this specific instance?

It's kinda like Bush saying, "we will fire anyone who leaks to the press," on the one hand. But if when a leak occurs, deciding the particulars of the case didn't warrant following his announced "policy"....

I find both situations to be disturbing (if they are true)....meanwhile you are willing to hold Bush accountable for his 'exception' to policy, but refusing to recognize Clinton may have made an 'exception' to policy....in this case.

It's in the Commission's report. Permission was indeed denied. Even if Tenet was given authority to grant permission, that doesn't mean that every field agent had authority to pull the trigger at will. As far as I can tell, the movie doesn't suggest that Clinton is personally asked to authorize this particular operation.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's in the Commission's report. Permission was indeed denied. Even if Tenet was given authority to grant permission, that doesn't mean that every field agent had authority to pull the trigger at will. As far as I can tell, the movie doesn't suggest that Clinton is personally asked to authorize this particular operation.

Well, thanks for clarifying that, then patteeu.

[Chiefnj]

Well, thanks for clarifying that, then patteeu.

You don't ask for a link for this?

[Mr. Kotter]

So based on a mini-series, we need to start having testimonies on this?

No. Based on the allegation, if it is deemed during the course of an investigation, to be credible.

Are you suggesting we simply ignore such a shocking allegation? :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

You don't ask for a link for this?

Knowing patteuu.....I'm comfortable that for him to make that statement, he's researched it. :)

[Robo-Chachi]

No. Based on the allegation, if it is deemed during the course of an investigation, to be credible.

Are you suggesting we simply ignore such a shocking allegation? :hmmm:

Pretty much. I've yet to see any earth shattering news stories be broken by movies of the week.

[patteeu]

Let's see if we can put our 3rd grade read skills to work together.
"Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."
What does "every request" mean? I'll venture to guess it means that there was not any request ever in any "specific instance" that was put to him that he didn't approve.

Ever.

Do you realize how embarrassing it is for you to be able to read but to be so politically shaded that everyone and their mother is able to laugh at your's and patteeu's shrieking desperate attempt to find even the slimmest, tiniest crack to grab hold of... only to plummet to the bottom when reality comes crashing in on your fantasy land?

Comedy Gold. ROFL

Keep laughing. It's pretty clear to me that you are the one who is reading this stuff with a 3rd grade mentality. "Every request made of him" doesn't mean the same thing as "every request." The Commission report specifically says that a plan was in place but that permission to go forward with it was denied by members of Clinton's inner circle (not by Clinton himself, who apparently was not personally approached with the proposition). Does the movie indicate that Clinton was personally asked to grant or deny this permission? If it does, then it's probably inaccurate on that particular point. I'm betting that it doesn't.

[patteeu]

Is there anything else making this claim besides a TV miniseries?

What claim?

[patteeu]

Kotter,

Where is your proof that this issue is true? Where is it in the Commission report?

Where did Kotter ever suggest that it's true? His first comment was conditional ("if true, then...). His subsequent posts have indicated a lack of satisfaction with jAZ's attempts to say definitively that it is untrue.

It's in the Commission Report, Chapter 4. You should read it.

[Mr. Kotter]

Pretty much. I've yet to see any earth shattering news stories be broken by movies of the week.

Okay. That's your prerogative....

Funny how many people wanna believe some "allegations" about 9/11 but aren't interested in how or why it may have happened..... ;)

[Robo-Chachi]

What claim?


One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

[patteeu]

There's this thing called the burden of proof. Jaz doesn't have to prove it is a lie. Why don't you guys or the makers of this movie prove it is true?

Because us guys aren't the ones making a claim, jAZ is. If jAZ was just expressing skepticism and if the makers of the movie were here, I'd agree that the burden is on them to prove it, but that's not the case. jAZ seems certain that it's a lie so he should be able to prove it's a lie. Your understanding of the concept of a burden of proof needs some work.

[patteeu]

So based on a mini-series, we need to start having testimonies on this?

Your lack of interest in the truth is charming. You're the kind of guy that jAZ is taking classes on how to impress.

[Robo-Chachi]

Your lack of interest in the truth is charming. You're the kind of guy that jAZ is taking classes on how to impress.

I'm all about the truth. That is why until I see some factual proof of this I'm calling bullshit.

[Robo-Chachi]

Because us guys aren't the ones making a claim, jAZ is. If jAZ was just expressing skepticism and if the makers of the movie were here, I'd agree that the burden is on them to prove it, but that's not the case. jAZ seems certain that it's a lie so he should be able to prove it's a lie. Your understanding of the concept of a burden of proof needs some work.


So if I go to court and say I saw you murder somebody and dump the body in the ocean and you say "He's lying" then the burden of proof is on you to prove I am lying?

[patteeu]

What claim?

One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

I don't know if anyone actually surrounded the bin Laden compound (which included something like 80 different buildings). A plan to raid the compound using indigenous tribal forces (aka Northern Alliance) to capture bin Laden was devised. Preliminary approval to develop the plan was granted. Several dress rehearsals were held. Final approval was sought. The CIA guy on the ground thought highly of the plan and believed it to be the best chance we could expect to take out bin Laden. A risk that bin Laden might be killed was identified and was cause for concern at high levels within the government because it might appear to be an assassination. They were also concerned about US fingerprints on the operation and other political fallout. Authority to execute the plan was denied by someone at a very high level. Who it was isn't definitively determined, but George Tenet is the most likely person (and IIRC, he claimed to be the person, so this is a pretty good likelihood). Sandy Berger was aware of the request for final approval but apparently deferred to Tenet's judgement to nix the plan.

So, in summary, poetic license appears to have been taken with the dramatization of the scene, but the essential facts appear to be correct. The one thing I will say may not get full airing in the movie is the probability of success calculations being made by decision makers. Even though the field agents were apparently pretty gung ho about this mission and it's chances of success, DC decision makers put the chances of success at something between 30-40%. (For those decision makers, killing bin Laden would have been considered a failure because they were afraid of the possibility that it would look like an assassination, so the chances of either capturing or killing bin Laden would have been something higher than that number). The goal of the mission was to capture bin Laden and bring him back for trial (either here or in a friendly arab country).

[patteeu]

So if I go to court and say I saw you murder somebody and dump the body in the ocean and you say "He's lying" then the burden of proof is on you to prove I am lying?

No. In that case, you are making the assertion (not to mention the fact that we have a presumption of innocence in our criminal system that isn't present in our political system).

As I said in my previous post, if the film makers were present then they could be held to account for their affirmative assertions. They aren't. Kotter and I weren't making affirmative assertions when we challenged jAZ's "It's a lie" assertion. Since he was making such an assertion, proof is his burden.

[jAZ]

ItAs far as I can tell, the movie doesn't suggest that Clinton is personally asked to authorize this particular operation.
Does the movie indicate that Clinton was personally asked to grant or deny this permission? If it does, then it's probably inaccurate on that particular point. I'm betting that it doesn't.
Jesus God... you aren't stupid so I don't know what to attribute this assinine behavior to. This is the exact paragraph that Kotter highlighted that I responded to, that you are refuting... Did you even bother to read what you were trying to defend? How in the hell do you explain betting that the movie doesn't say this???
One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.
They attribute the phone call as being directly to "Clinton, but he... refuse to give authorization". The movie says directly (according to the one account that we are ALL using on this thread) that "Clinton ...refuse(d) to give authorization".

Seriously. Sad. Pathetic. Delluded. Fragile. Reality is a bitch, huh?

[jAZ]

So, in summary, poetic license appears to have been taken with the dramatization of the scene, but the essential facts appear to be correct.
If by "poetic license" and "essential facts appear to be correct" you mean specificlly naming Clinton as having personally being contacted and having personally "refuse(d) authorization" when you yourself disagree with that "fact".

[Radar Chief]

So, in summary, poetic license appears to have been taken with the dramatization of the scene, but the essential facts appear to be correct.

I think you mean “dramatic license”, but yea, I’ll agree with that.
Sure, this particular scene appears made up, but is it strictly to smear Clinton? Or an attempt to embody multiple failures similar in scope, execution? :shrug:

[patteeu]

Jesus God... you aren't stupid so I don't know what to attribute this assinine behavior to. This is the exact paragraph that Kotter highlighted that I responded to, that you are refuting... Did you even bother to read what you were trying to defend? How in the hell do you explain betting that the movie doesn't say this???

They attribute the phone call as being directly to "Clinton, but he... refuse to give authorization". The movie says directly (according to the one account that we are ALL using on this thread) that "Clinton ...refuse(d) to give authorization".

Seriously. Sad. Pathetic. Delluded. Fragile. Reality is a bitch, huh?

I'll be surprised if that's actually a part of the movie instead of just careless writing on the part of this reviewer. If that's the literal hook you are hanging your entire rebuttal on then I guess I can see your point in a "definition of the word 'is'" kind of way.

There is no reason to believe that the guys running this operation personally phoned "Clinton" but they did phone/communicate with the Clinton administration senior staff. Do you agree that his senior staff refused to authorize this mission?

[patteeu]

If by "poetic license" and "essential facts appear to be correct" you mean specificlly naming Clinton as having personally being contacted and having personally "refuse(d) authorization" when you yourself disagree with that "fact".

I'll bet you that that's not in the movie.

[jAZ]

I think you mean “dramatic license”, but yea, I’ll agree with that.
Sure, this particular scene appears made up, but is it strictly to smear Clinton? Or an attempt to embody multiple failures similar in scope, execution? :shrug:
Yeah, writing Clinton's role into an event that if true admittedly had nothing to do with Clinton personally. Yeah... that's ok.

It's only a movie... it's not being promoted directly to schools children... it's just for-profit fiction... that was produced at a cost of $40M and is being aired in place of 2 evenings worth of prime-time advertising during on the anniversary of 9/11 during the lead up to a major national election which is a referendum on the current administration and their response to 9/11.

It's no big deal that this makes up stuff that didn't happen.

[Radar Chief]

Yeah, writing Clinton's role into an event that if true admittedly had nothing to do with Clinton personally. Yeah... that's ok.

It's only a movie... it's not being promoted directly to schools children... it's just for-profit fiction... that was produced at a cost of $40M and is being aired in place of 2 evenings worth of prime-time advertising during on the anniversary of 9/11 during the lead up to a major national election which is a referendum on the current administration and their response to 9/11.

It's no big deal that this makes up stuff that didn't happen.

:spock: Project much?
I’m not claim’n right or wrong, but rather wondering why.
And, I’m not make’n a statement, that’s a question.
Ascribing motive appears to be your shtick. ROFL

[patteeu]

I think you mean “dramatic license”, but yea, I’ll agree with that.
Sure, this particular scene appears made up, but is it strictly to smear Clinton? Or an attempt to embody multiple failures similar in scope, execution? :shrug:

Yes, I'll go with "dramatic license."

I don't really think the scene is as made up as you seem to. What I think happened here is that the actual details of this one, real operation were a bit dry for a dramatic movie so they compressed some of the actions and highlighted some of the defining moments. For example, rather than following memos and phone calls around from office to office, they might have short-circuited the boring reality with a single phone call from a field agent to headquarters. Or instead of having a network of Afghan informants feeding information to a field officer, they might have placed the field officer at the location so he could see something first hand or hear it from a single original source informant. I don't know that either of those examples are present in this movie, they are just my guess at the types of dramatic license that are likely in a movie like this.

[jspchief]

I think it's awesome that the right is combating the Michael Moores with their own bullshit propoganda.

And yes, if it were a lefty piece, righties would be bitching. Much like lefties are bitching about this. Point?

[jAZ]

I'll bet you that that's not in the movie.

Holy Christ!

ROFL

http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg

[jspchief]

Is that Donavan McNabb?

[patteeu]

Yeah, writing Clinton's role into an event that if true admittedly had nothing to do with Clinton personally. Yeah... that's ok.

It's only a movie... it's not being promoted directly to schools children... it's just for-profit fiction... that was produced at a cost of $40M and is being aired in place of 2 evenings worth of prime-time advertising during on the anniversary of 9/11 during the lead up to a major national election which is a referendum on the current administration and their response to 9/11.

It's no big deal that this makes up stuff that didn't happen.

There is very little doubt that Clinton had a role in the caution demonstrated by his staff in this instance even if he wasn't personally in the loop for the specific decisions. In addition to the likelihood that Clinton's thoughts on the matter of the bin Laden pursuit were well known to his advisors, Clinton had a long history of throwing his aides and friends overboard when they became inconvenient for him. His advisors would have been foolish not to take that personality trait into consideration.

Maybe we should wait for the movie to see if it really puts Clinton in the decision maker's chair on this one.

[patteeu]

Holy Christ!

ROFL


Does that mean you'll take my bet?

[Radar Chief]

Yes, I'll go with "dramatic license."

I don't really think the scene is as made up as you seem to. What I think happened here is that the actual details of this one, real operation were a bit dry for a dramatic movie so they compressed some of the actions and highlighted some of the defining moments. For example, rather than following memos and phone calls around from office to office, they might have short-circuited the boring reality with a single phone call from a field agent to headquarters. Or instead of having a network of Afghan informants feeding information to a field officer, they might have placed the field officer at the location so he could see something first hand or hear it from a single original source informant. I don't know that either of those examples are present in this movie, they are just my guess at the types of dramatic license that are likely in a movie like this.

I say “made up” cause I’ve never heard of this particular circumstance. I’ve read/heard of similar, like spot’n bin Hide’n with a Predator drone in Afghanistan in, IIRC, ’00 at his home compound but do’n nothing ‘bout it since the criteria changed from “get bin Hide’n” to “get’im alive”.
But otherwise your right on what I meant by “dramatic license”. :thumb:

[stevieray]

The only one appearing desperate, pathetic, and sad in this thread is you, JAz.

[Radar Chief]

I say “made up” cause I’ve never heard of this particular circumstance. I’ve read/heard of similar, like spot’n bin Hide’n with a Predator drone in Afghanistan in, IIRC, ’00 at his home compound but do’n nothing ‘bout it since the criteria changed from “get bin Hide’n” to “get’im alive”.
But otherwise your right on what I meant by “dramatic license”. :thumb:

Actually, now that I think of it this happened in ’98 since one month later the Kobar towers were truck bombed.
And that’s the same reference that’s used for the scene we’re discuss’n.

[patteeu]

Actually, now that I think of it this happened in ’98 since one month later the Kobar towers were truck bombed.
And that’s the same reference that’s used for the scene we’re discuss’n.

June 23, 1998 was the target date for the operation. May 29, 1998 was the day the decision to stand down was made. The mission's planning had started about 6 months earlier.

The Kobar Towers bombing occurred on June 25, 1996 (two years earlier), but the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya took place on August 7, 1998. The reference you were thinking of was to the Embassy bombings.

[Radar Chief]

I think it's awesome that the right is combating the Michael Moores with their own bullshit propoganda.

And yes, if it were a lefty piece, righties would be bitching. Much like lefties are bitching about this. Point?

I just wonder if Cyrus Nowrasteh will receive awards and get the “red carpet” treatment from the rest of Hollywood like “Double Cheeseburger” did. :hmmm:

[jAZ]

Does that mean you'll take my bet?
Actually, I'm more curious if you are now admitting that you agree with me and believe "It's a lie."

http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually, I'm more curious if you are now admitting that you agree with me and believe "It's a lie."

Well, that's progress.

You've gone from a declarative statement of certainty, to "I believe...."





Welcome back to that land of the rational. :)

[jAZ]

Well, that's progress.

You've gone from a declarative statement of certainty, to "I believe...."





Welcome back to that land of the rational. :)
Have you figured out how to get out of this box yet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3396633&postcount=55)?

[Radar Chief]

June 23, 1998 was the target date for the operation. May 29, 1998 was the day the decision to stand down was made. The mission's planning had started about 6 months earlier.

The Kobar Towers bombing occurred on June 25, 1996 (two years earlier), but the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya took place on August 7, 1998. The reference you were thinking of was to the Embassy bombings.

Ok, I had to go look it up. What I was think’n of was in ’00 but couldn’t have anything to do with the Kobar Towers which were bombed in ’96.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

[patteeu]

Actually, I'm more curious if you are now admitting that you agree with me and believe "It's a lie."


It's technically inaccurate and may be a lie if it is intentional. I'm guessing it's careless, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I don't think it's very relevant to Mr. Kotter's reaction in post #17.

Mr. Kotter, if the author of this review had said:

They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone senior staff members of the Clinton administration, but they refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

would your reaction have been substantially different from:



If this is true..... wow. :eek:

Just wow. :shake:

Or was your reaction only in response to the mention of Clinton?

[Mr. Kotter]

Have you figured out how to get out of this box yet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3396633&postcount=55)?
I don't believe you.....or your the partisan shills and moonbats you cite.

I said: give me somone credible....INDEPENDENT and CREDIBLE.

YOU are the one claiming (at least was claiming) "certainty" that it is a lie.

I'm simply suggesting there is now reason to doubt your account....:shrug:






Damn, you are thick headed.....:shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

It's technically inaccurate and may be a lie if it is intentional. I'm guessing it's careless, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I don't think it's very relevant to Mr. Kotter's reaction in post #17.

Mr. Kotter, if the author of this review had said:



would your reaction have been substantially different from:



Or was your reaction only in response to the mention of Clinton?
It would have made no difference to me. That Clinton may have been privy to it, would elevate it to a greater outrage....but just his staff nixing it would be extraordinary enough for me.

And it should be disturbing to anyone else, IMHO.

IF it is verified to be true, that is.....:)

[patteeu]

Have you figured out how to get out of this box yet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3396633&postcount=55)?

Your box was more like a wet paper bag (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3396695&postcount=72).

Is your only objection to this particular part of the movie the possibility that it puts Clinton personally at the scene of the decision? Do you agree that the rest of the account, as far as we can tell from this review, is substantially accurate and comes from the Commission report?

[patteeu]

It would have made no difference to me. That Clinton may have been privvy to it, would elevate it to a greater outrage....but just his staff nixing it would be extraordinary enough for me.

And it should be disturbing to anyone else, IMHO.

IF it is verified to be true, that is.....:)

That's what I thought. jAZ is trying to pull a Clinton on us by focusing exclusively on a relatively inconsequential part of the statement while trying to give the impression that the entire statement is false.

[jAZ]

Or was your reaction only in response to the mention of Clinton?
My response (as is indicated at every step of this pointless debate) was about the suggestion that Clinton refused to authorize taking out bin Laden. Everything on record disputes that assertion.

You are the first person on this thread to try to redirect the coversation to one about whether or not Tenent refused to authorize this action. I have no idea if your story has any basis in anything even remotely related to reality.

But I do know (and you are now hesitantly acknowledging) that the statement Kotter actually responded to... is utterly false. Kotter seems unwilling to go even that far.

For your efforts, I give you the very minimal level of respect deserved by someone who admits reality. Sadly, in this modern era of Cheney/Rove/Bush -centric politics, even admitting that reality is in fact reality is Hurculean task for some.

[jAZ]

It would have made no difference to me. That Clinton may have been privvy to it, would elevate it to a greater outrage....but just his staff nixing it would be extraordinary enough for me.
ROFL

"It would have made no difference to me"... other than it being less outrageous if Tenent were responsible.

ROFL

[jAZ]

That's what I thought. jAZ is trying to pull a Clinton on us by focusing exclusively on a relatively inconsequential part of the statement while trying to give the impression that the entire statement is false.
Bullshit.

The outrage over this story is that it tries to heap blame for 9/11 on Clinton. And in doing so, the most retold detail of the movie is completely false.

That's my point about the part Kotter highlighted.

[jAZ]

Your box was more like a wet paper bag (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3396695&postcount=72).

Is your only objection to this particular part of the movie the possibility that it puts Clinton personally at the scene of the decision? Do you agree that the rest of the account, as far as we can tell from this review, is substantially accurate and comes from the Commission report?
As I've said, I have no idea... in large part because you made a bunch of unsupported assertions.

If it's in the 9/11 report, then cite where.

[patteeu]

My response (as is indicated at every step of this pointless debate) was about the suggestion that Clinton refused to authorize taking out bin Laden. Everything on record disputes that assertion.

You are the first person on this thread to try to redirect the coversation to one about whether or not Tenent refused to authorize this action. I have no idea if your story has any basis in anything even remotely related to reality.

But I do know (and you are now hesitantly acknowledging) that the statement Kotter actually responded to... is utterly false. Kotter seems unwilling to go even that far.

For your efforts, I give you the very minimal level of respect deserved by someone who admits reality. Sadly, in this modern era of Cheney/Rove/Bush -centric politics, even admitting that reality is in fact reality is Hurculean task for some.

I was asking about Mr. Kotter's response, not yours. Where's that "Stupidity" jpg when you need it?

[patteeu]

Bullshit.

The outrage over this story is that it tries to heap blame for 9/11 on Clinton. And in doing so, the most retold detail of the movie is completely false.

That's my point about the part Kotter highlighted.

So as long as Clinton isn't personally tied to an explicit action here, you are OK with the allegation that the Clinton administration had the chance to act but chose not to do so in a way that may well be closely reflected in the movie? If so, we have found some common ground. Of course, it's the same ground that exonerates Bush from many of the sins you've attributed to him over the past few years as the head of his administration, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

BTW, let's wait until we actually see the movie to find out whether or not they finger Clinton for personal involvement in this particular decision. I'm still betting, from what I read in this review, that they don't.

[patteeu]

As I've said, I have no idea... in large part because you made a bunch of unsupported assertions.

If it's in the 9/11 report, then cite where.

Chapter 4.

[jAZ]

So as long as Clinton isn't personally tied to an explicit action here, you are OK with the allegation that the Clinton administration had the chance to act but chose not to do so in a way that may well be closely reflected in the movie?
What gives you that idea?

[patteeu]

What gives you that idea?

It's a question aimed at getting an answer from you. Maybe it wasn't clear. Obviously, the impression you gave me for a long time in this thread was that you think the entire premise of this particular scene in the movie is false. Recently, you've made it clear that you are focused on a very narrow aspect of that scene. I'm curious about whether or not you think the rest of it is "a lie."

[jAZ]

It's a question aimed at getting an answer from you. Maybe it wasn't clear. Obviously, the impression you gave me for a long time in this thread was that you think the entire premise of this particular scene in the movie is false. Recently, you've made it clear that you are focused on a very narrow aspect of that scene. I'm curious about whether or not you think the rest of it is "a lie."
I addressed this once before, but you chose to ignore my post (though you quoted it)...
My response (as is indicated at every step of this pointless debate) was about the suggestion that Clinton refused to authorize taking out bin Laden. Everything on record disputes that assertion.

You are the first person on this thread to try to redirect the coversation to one about whether or not Tenent refused to authorize this action. I have no idea if your story has any basis in anything even remotely related to reality.

To be clear... given that I have willingly admitted that "I have no idea"... I think it's obvious that "I have no idea" if your scenario is a lie or not. I have no idea.

[patteeu]

I addressed this once before, but you chose to ignore my post (though you quoted it)...
My response (as is indicated at every step of this pointless debate) was about the suggestion that Clinton refused to authorize taking out bin Laden. Everything on record disputes that assertion.

You are the first person on this thread to try to redirect the coversation to one about whether or not Tenent refused to authorize this action. I have no idea if your story has any basis in anything even remotely related to reality.

To be clear... given that I have willingly admitted that "I have no idea"... I think it's obvious that "I have no idea" if your scenario is a lie or not. I have no idea.

It's not my scenario, it's the 9/11 Commission's scenario.

So just to be clear, I'll recap. You are adamant and quite certain that Clinton was not personally involved in the decision to abandon this plan even though you have no idea about what really happened, but aside from that relatively minor facet of the scenario you plead complete ignorance? OK, I believe you.

[jAZ]

It's not my scenario, it's the 9/11 Commission's scenario.

So just to be clear, I'll recap. You are adamant and quite certain that Clinton was not personally involved in the decision to abandon this plan even though you have no idea about what really happened, but aside from that relatively minor facet of the scenario you plead complete ignorance? OK, I believe you.
Yes, because you refuse to provide any more clarity than "Chapter 4" of the 9/11 report. You can't point me to a quote or even a page # that you are refering to?

[Chiefnj]

The 9/11 Report on this:


"The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he
had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern
Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike”
cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for
the time being.” He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought
the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high. They were
concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and
nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and
misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin,
despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the oper-ation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the opera-tion.
He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s rec-ollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision."

[patteeu]

Yes, because you refuse to provide any more clarity than "Chapter 4" of the 9/11 report. You can't point me to a quote or even a page # that you are refering to?

Start looking on page 111. I think it runs from 111 to 115 give or take a couple pages. To be honest, I would have thought you'd have checked it out before jumping in with the "It's a lie" post, but I guess it's just easier to let ThinkProgress do your reading for you.

[patteeu]

The 9/11 Report on this:


"The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he
had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern
Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike”
cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for
the time being.” He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought
the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high. They were
concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and
nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and
misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin,
despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the oper-ation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the opera-tion.
He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s rec-ollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision."


Yep, that's the end of the section describing this operation.

[jAZ]

"Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision."
Thanks...

I'm not sure what to make of this...

"They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”
If it's American political "misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations" that was at issue... then I think it's worthy of serious objection (maybe "outrage") on my part and others.

If it's a statement of cost/benefit with respect to a bigger picture effort (the battle for the "hearts and minds") in the region and they came down on the side that this particular action would be more likely to cause more harm than good (ie, doing so would put at risk future intel relationships)... then it's obviously a bad judgement on Tenents part in hindsight, but it isn't as objectionable as injecting American politics into a decision about national security.

[Chiefnj]

Start looking on page 111. I think it runs from 111 to 115 give or take a couple pages. To be honest, I would have thought you'd have checked it out before jumping in with the "It's a lie" post, but I guess it's just easier to let ThinkProgress do your reading for you.

The movie review, if true, portrays the film as containing many lies.

They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead.

All of the people presenting the raid described it as having only a 30-40% chance of success. A bit different from "on the verge" of capturing.


They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

The report doesn't mention Clinton at all. Berger said the plan was never presented to the White House. Tenet said it was his call.

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent.

Not in the report at all.


The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission.

It's gone from "on the verge" to "a few feet" in a single paragraph. I suppose the tribesmen will have had an infrared bead on Bin Laden's forehead ready to pull the trigger when Hillary jumps out of an Apache helicopter telling them to end the mission in the next version of the story.

[jAZ]

Start looking on page 111. I think it runs from 111 to 115 give or take a couple pages. To be honest, I would have thought you'd have checked it out before jumping in with the "It's a lie" post, but I guess it's just easier to let ThinkProgress do your reading for you.
Why would I read pages 111-115 when the quotes posted and cited above point to page 199?

[patteeu]

Thanks...

I'm not sure what to make of this...


If it's American political "misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations" that was at issue... then I think it's worthy of serious objection (maybe "outrage") on my part and others.

If it's a statement of cost/benefit with respect to a bigger picture effort (the battle for the "hearts and minds") in the region and they came down on the side that this particular action would be more likely to cause more harm than good (ie, doing so would put at risk future intel relationships)... then it's obviously a bad judgement on Tenents part in hindsight, but it isn't as objectionable as injecting American politics into a decision about national security.

You should read the entire section of the 9/11 report and you won't have to guess. The reason they are worried that bin Laden might die is that they worry they might be subject to accusations of assassination. This, of course, is concern about appearance over substance since it wasn't an assassination attempt in the first place, but furthermore they apparently had secret authority to kill the guy anyway.

This might not have been their only consideration wrt a failed mission, but it was the main (only?) issue related to the possibility of bin Laden dying.

[Radar Chief]

It's gone from "on the verge" to "a few feet" in a single paragraph. I suppose the tribesmen will have had an infrared bead on Bin Laden's forehead ready to pull the trigger when Hillary jumps out of an Apache helicopter telling them to end the mission in the next version of the story.

Sarcasm noted, but “infrared” is ‘round +900 nM and outside the visible spectrum. You’d be closer with “laser site”. ;)

[jAZ]

You should read the entire section of the 9/11 report and you won't have to guess. The reason they are worried that bin Laden might die is that they worry they might be subject to accusations of assassination. This, of course, is concern about appearance over substance since it wasn't an assassination attempt in the first place, but furthermore they apparently had secret authority to kill the guy anyway.

This might not have been their only consideration wrt a failed mission, but it was the main (only?) issue related to the possibility of bin Laden dying.
Again, I ask if this was WRT to American politics or regional politics. There is a major difference between the two, IMO.

I'll lay it out.

If the Clinton administration was judging this action based upon the political backlash that they would face ("no war for Monica") from Republicans back home... then Clinton needs to be criticized for cowtowing to the Repulicans. Not to mention that the Republicans (who we know created a hostile political environment at the expense of national security up until they let 9/11 happen on their watch) outright F'ed in the head for putting anti-Clinton rhetoric over efforts to kill bin Laden.

If it's not about that at all, then I'll withhold judgement on Clinton's administration's cowtowing to Republican pressure to embarass him via his efforts to protect the country against bin Laden. The Republicans get no lee-way, because we know that after trying to kill bin Laden, Republicans attacked Clinton with their "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica" rhetoric.

And also, if it's about a judgement call over whether killing bin Laden at that time, in that way would help or hurt the larger cause of anti al Queda efforts... then it was obviously a mistake, but a somewhat forgivable (honest effort) one... unlike cowtowing to Republican political pressure.

[patteeu]

The movie review, if true, portrays the film as containing many lies.

They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead.

All of the people presenting the raid described it as having only a 30-40% chance of success. A bit different from "on the verge" of capturing.

This isn't a "lie," it's a subjective difference about what "on the verge" means. No mission is fool proof. Even if a mission had a 99% chance of success, you could make the same argument that you are making here.

The CIA officer on the ground didn't give an estimated chance of success in percentage terms. According to the Commission report, he thought the mission was "the perfect operation." Others indicated that it was the best they were likely to get (and indeed it turned out that that was the case).

No doubt about it, like any covert mission, there were risks both in terms of mission success and in terms of reprecussions if things went wrong. That doesn't change the fact that this was one of the best opportunities we ever had to get bin Laden and the Clinton administration took a pass. Now I'm not overly critical of them for making this decision, but I wonder what you and jAZ have had to say about similar tradeoffs made at Tora Bora by Bush administration officials?

They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

The report doesn't mention Clinton at all. Berger said the plan was never presented to the White House. Tenet said it was his call.

We've been all through this one. I agree that the report doesn't indicate that Clinton was in the loop. I suspect that the movie doesn't place him there and that it is just careless writing on the part of this reviewer. We'll see who is right when the movie is broadcast.

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent.

Not in the report at all.

Right, that's not in the report afaik.


The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission.

It's gone from "on the verge" to "a few feet" in a single paragraph. I suppose the tribesmen will have had an infrared bead on Bin Laden's forehead ready to pull the trigger when Hillary jumps out of an Apache helicopter telling them to end the mission in the next version of the story.

:rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Why would I read pages 111-115 when the quotes posted and cited above point to page 199?

Because you were interested in the truth instead of TruthOutSpinIn.com. :shrug:

[jAZ]

Because you were interested in the truth instead of TruthOutSpinIn.com. :shrug:
Yeah, cause unless I read the 9/11 Report cover to cover... you won't believe I'm interested in the "truth" that this movie is spinning.

[patteeu]

Again, I ask if this was WRT to American politics or regional politics. There is a major difference between the two, IMO.

I'll lay it out.

If the Clinton administration was judging this action based upon the political backlash that they would face ("no war for Monica") from Republicans back home... then Clinton needs to be criticized for cowtowing to the Repulicans. Not to mention that the Republicans (who we know created a hostile political environment at the expense of national security up until they let 9/11 happen on their watch) outright F'ed in the head for putting anti-Clinton rhetoric over efforts to kill bin Laden.

If it's not about that at all, then I'll withhold judgement on Clinton's administration's cowtowing to Republican pressure to embarass him via his efforts to protect the country against bin Laden. The Republicans get no lee-way, because we know that after trying to kill bin Laden, Republicans attacked Clinton with their "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica" rhetoric.

And also, if it's about a judgement call over whether killing bin Laden at that time, in that way would help or hurt the larger cause of anti al Queda efforts... then it was obviously a mistake, but a somewhat forgivable (honest effort) one... unlike cowtowing to Republican political pressure.


I think it was an honest mistake. Perhaps it was the kind of mistake that becomes more likely when you are (or when you work for) a political coward like Bill Clinton, but a mistake nonetheless. I'm not one to use hindsight to indict people for their honest mistakes. If you were consistent with this kind of foresight-only analysis, you wouldn't be so hard on the Bush administration, but you aren't.

If Clinton wanted to have his grand jury day attack on Al Qaeda out buildings taken more seriously, he shouldn't have made it such a half-hearted effort, IMO.

[patteeu]

Yeah, cause unless I read the 9/11 Report cover to cover... you won't believe I'm interested in the "truth" that this movie is spinning.

You should at least follow up on the details you are inclined to challenge. Especially when the TruthOut reference to the 9/11 report so clearly didn't disprove anything about the movie. It was intended to give their effort at debunking the movie some gravitas for those who skim through and don't bother to read the source material. I guess they snagged you with that one.

[jAZ]

I think it was an honest mistake. Perhaps it was the kind of mistake that becomes more likely when you are (or when you work for) a political coward like Bill Clinton, but a mistake nonetheless. I'm not one to use hindsight to indict people for their honest mistakes. If you were consistent with this kind of foresight-only analysis, you wouldn't be so hard on the Bush administration, but you aren't.

If Clinton wanted to have his grand jury day attack on Al Qaeda out buildings taken more seriously, he shouldn't have made it such a half-hearted effort, IMO.
Odd that you won't address my question of whether it was (or you believe it was) about American politics or ME politics.

I wonder why that's so hard for you to speak clearly about? You seem to have a well read opinion on the matter, but seem to avoid answering my question directly.

Odd.

[Mr. Kotter]

Yeah, cause unless I read the 9/11 Report cover to cover... you won't believe I'm interested in the "truth" that this movie is spinning.

Says the guy who accuses others of being "uninformed" and "ignorant," for refusing to read the bullshit blogs, partisan propaganda, and ideologically motivated publications he regularly cites.....

ROFLROFLROFL

[jAZ]

You should at least follow up on the details you are inclined to challenge. Especially when the TruthOut reference to the 9/11 report so clearly didn't disprove anything about the movie. It was intended to give their effort at debunking the movie some gravitas for those who skim through and don't bother to read the source material. I guess they snagged you with that one.
The ThinkProgress article was sufficient to eventually get to you to stop saying that that I had no justification to say that the claim was a lie (or at least false) and instead get you to start cliaming that the movie won't match the false claims made by the reviewer.

Yeah... they didn't "disprove" anything about the movie.

ROFL

[jAZ]

Says the guy who accuses others of being "uninformed" and "ignorant," for refusing to read the bullshit blogs, partisan propaganda, and ideologically motivated publications he regularly cites.....

ROFLROFLROFL
You really do suck at this whole message board thing.

[Chiefnj]

The report indicates it was regional politics.

I'm amazed that Pat can still claim the "9/11 report so clearly didn't disprove anything about the movie".

[patteeu]

Odd that you won't address my question of whether it was (or you believe it was) about American politics or ME politics.

I wonder why that's so hard for you to speak clearly about? You seem to have a well read opinion on the matter, but seem to avoid answering my question directly.

Odd.

I told you where you could get as much information as I have on this, but for some reason, reading the handful of pages from the 9/11 report seems to be more effort than you're willing to invest.

My answer is that they were concerned with both. It's not an either/or situation. They were concerned with international politics if our fingerprints were found on the operation and for that reason the mission planners came up with the idea of having the locals hold onto OBL for a month after nabbing him before handing him over to us. They were also worried about American politics wrt the assassination issue. The report doesn't spell these things out specifically so there is some need to interpret, but if you'd simply read the report you won't have to wonder about what the bases for my interpretations are.

[patteeu]

The ThinkProgress article was sufficient to eventually get to you to stop saying that that I had no justification to say that the claim was a lie (or at least false) and instead get you to start cliaming that the movie won't match the false claims made by the reviewer.

Yeah... they didn't "disprove" anything about the movie.

ROFL

That post was about the specific ThinkProgress reference to the 9/11 Commission Report (page 199). That reference didn't disprove anything about the movie or the review, just as I said.

As for the rest of that ThinkProgress article, it spends a lot of time failing to rebut anything in the movie because it relies entirely on testimony from people (Richard Clarke and a couple of his NSC underlings/colleagues) who have every incentive to defend the actions of the Clinton administration and give them a positive spin.

The one thing we proved with this long back and forth, beyond any doubt, was that you didn't have a working knowledge of the facts but that you were relying entirely on the spin doctors at ThinkProgress.

Not only was your "It's a lie" an overbroad and misleading statement, but the ThinkProgress piece would qualify as a "lie" using your criteria when they say:

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The Clinton administration did pass on the chance to kill or catch bin Laden.

No one ever said it was "surefire" and in the real world, no operation like this can ever be "surefire."

It wasn't completely made up by Nowrasteh. In fact, the basic facts are all straight out of the 9/11 Commission Report even if he used some dramatic license in the presentation.

In summary, the viewer should rest assured that the Clinton administration did indeed pass on perhaps the best opportunity we've ever had to capture or kill Osama bin Laden since the first WTC attack in 1993 although when they watch the movie they should realize that some of the details (specific dialogue, people present in a given meeting, arrangement of furniture, and the absence of Monica Lewinsky from under President Clinton's desk, for example) cannot be taken as gospel.

[patteeu]

The report indicates it was regional politics.

I don't think it was that clear. It did mention some concern for keeping US fingerprints off the operation which would indicate a concern over regional/global politics, but I don't think it rules out concern over American politics. I urge jAZ to read it himself and come to his own conclusion.

I'm amazed that Pat can still claim the "9/11 report so clearly didn't disprove anything about the movie".

Unless you are a moron (and I'm assuming you are not), I'm sure that if you go back and read the post that that quote comes from, you'll recognize that it doesn't say what you are suggesting it says.

The ThinkProgress reference to a particular page in the 9/11 report clearly didn't disprove anything about the movie. Is that more clear?

[stevieray]

You really do suck at this whole message board thing.

The clone factory couldn't produce Bush fast enough for the prosecution for the dozens of false "truths" and "convictions" you've claimed over six years.

Again, it appears you are the only desperate one here, but we've all seen it the second election...IMO, you don't care about preserving the "rep" of Clinton, just obssessed with destroying the rep of Bush.

As much time as you have invested, it makes sense.

[jAZ]

The clone factory couldn't produce Bush fast enough for the prosecution for the dozens of false "truths" and "convictions" you've claimed over six years.

Again, it appears you are the only desperate one here, but we've all seen it the second election...IMO, you don't care about preserving the "rep" of Clinton, just obssessed with destroying the rep of Bush.

As much time as you have invested, it makes sense.
Let me know when you find time to contribute to the merits of the discussion, ok?

I'll be sure to invest more energy in your posts once you bother to do that (see patteeu if you need an example).

[stevieray]

Let me know when you find time to contribute to the merits of the discussion, ok?

I'll be sure to invest more energy in your posts once you bother to do that (see patteeu if you need an example).


How you much you care about my posts is irrelevant.

Merits of the discussion? You mean where you took an opinion of someone who saw this movie and instantly made this another partisian thread? Or whining about if Michael Moore's movie was on prime time, how everyone would whine too? Of course they would. That's the beuaty of this country...both movies can be shown..and people can make their own interpetations. Until we see the movie, only then can we make reasonable opinions...for or against. After all..they are just movies. I think it's safe to say that movies exaggerate.

As usual, you are telling everyone your opinion, and passing it off as fact, castigating anyone who gets in the way. That's your point isn't it? Your opinion is always fact. It's a play you and Dunise have employed since you've been here. I don't think either of you have ever admiited being wrong, though I could be mistaken, becuase ever is a pretty big brush.

You are consumed with defending Clinton over decision making or involvement. That is not the point, IMO. If his cabinet or advisors prevented his involement in a extremely important issue that demanded his immediate attention, then yes, they are to blame. Yet, his popularity and his image became priority. His adminstration has culpability in the tragedy of 9/11. It's simple common sense.... whether he knew or not.

I receive alot of criticism in this forum. Some of it is warranted, some isn't. It's ok...it's good to know how you look in others eyes, and allows oppurtunities to admit mistakes and learn.

I found it odd, you had to ask how to "give" your kid a sense of humor. You say we are a community...as a community member, I say sincerely, the first step for that is being able to laugh at yourself, including when you are mistaken.

[dirk digler]

I think it is udderly ridiculous to blame anyone for 9/11 except for the terrorists but for political hacks I guess they need to blame someone so they can sleep better at night.

I have said this before and I will say it again there is not one person here who gave .02 cents about terrorists or what was going around the world in the mid and late 90's. All we Americans cared about was making money, and more money and more money. We didn't care what was happening in Africa, Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else in the world.

9/11 changed all that but now we have gone to the opposite extreme. Now we are obessed with everything going on in the world EXCEPT for what is happening right here in America. We ignore all the problems here at home just so we can be the world's policeman.

I hope that one day soon we will find true leaders that will be able protect Americans against terrorists but still be able to fix and solve American problems.

That is my nightly rant now I feel better.

[jAZ]

How you much you care about my posts is irrelevant.

Merits of the discussion? You mean where you took an opinion of someone who saw this movie and instantly made this another partisian thread? Or whining about if Michael Moore's movie was on prime time, how everyone would whine too? Of course they would. That's the beuaty of this country...both movies can be shown..and people can make their own interpetations. Until we see the movie, only then can we make reasonable opinions...for or against. After all..they are just movies. I think it's safe to say that movies exaggerate.

As usual, you are telling everyone your opinion, and passing it off as fact, castigating anyone who gets in the way. That's your point isn't it? Your opinion is always fact. It's a play you and Dunise have employed since you've been here. I don't think either of you have ever admiited being wrong, though I could be mistaken, becuase ever is a pretty big brush.

You are consumed with defending Clinton over decision making or involvement. That is not the point, IMO. If his cabinet or advisors prevented his involement in a extremely important issue that demanded his immediate attention, then yes, they are to blame. Yet, his popularity and his image became priority. His adminstration has culpability in the tragedy of 9/11. It's simple common sense.... whether he knew or not.

I receive alot of criticism in this forum. Some of it is warranted, some isn't. It's ok...it's good to know how you look in others eyes, and allows oppurtunities to admit mistakes and learn.

I found it odd, you had to ask how to "give" your kid a sense of humor. You say we are a community...as a community member, I say sincerely, the first step for that is being able to laugh at yourself, including when you are mistaken.
I'll let you know once you contribute something to the actual discussion. Check with patteeu for an solid example. I disagree with him and at times think he's intellectually dishonest, but there is absolutely no doubt that he always, always addresses the topic.

He's a good role model for you. You might be similarly dishonest, but as long as you are on topic, I'll actually pay attention to you.

[patteeu]

I think it is udderly ridiculous to blame anyone for 9/11 except for the terrorists but for political hacks I guess they need to blame someone so they can sleep better at night.

I have said this before and I will say it again there is not one person here who gave .02 cents about terrorists or what was going around the world in the mid and late 90's. All we Americans cared about was making money, and more money and more money. We didn't care what was happening in Africa, Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else in the world.

9/11 changed all that but now we have gone to the opposite extreme. Now we are obessed with everything going on in the world EXCEPT for what is happening right here in America. We ignore all the problems here at home just so we can be the world's policeman.

I hope that one day soon we will find true leaders that will be able protect Americans against terrorists but still be able to fix and solve American problems.

That is my nightly rant now I feel better.

Glad you feel better, lol.

I was right with you for the first paragraph.

I think there were people who cared about terrorism during the 90's. Richard Lugar ran for president in 1996 saying that terrorism was the number one issue when very few paid much attention. You might be right that people around here weren't overly concerned about it (I certainly wasn't particularly concerned), but with the OK City bombing and a handful of other attacks, there were some who recognized the threat. By most accounts, Clinton's administration showed some level of recognition. The PNAC guys were focused on it and I know that the defense industry (along with their masters at the Pentagon) were preparing for a world in which asymetric warfare was an important fact of life. But in general, you're probably right that the average joe didn't give it too much thought.

I don't think we've gone to the opposite extreme now though and I think we have good leaders already. Big surprise, heh? :)

[jAZ]

I think it is udderly ridiculous to blame anyone for 9/11 except for the terrorists but for political hacks I guess they need to blame someone so they can sleep better at night.

I have said this before and I will say it again there is not one person here who gave .02 cents about terrorists or what was going around the world in the mid and late 90's. All we Americans cared about was making money, and more money and more money. We didn't care what was happening in Africa, Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else in the world.
If by "here" you mean the members of CP-DC... then you might be pretty close to right. If by "here" you mean American citizens in general, then you are somewhat less right, but not too far off.

But if you mean the Clinton Administration... I'm not sure you could be farther from the truth.

While no one (including much of the mainstrem media) was listening, there was a MASSIVE effort to fight terrorism under Clinton.

This is a pretty good set of links on the subject, though not even remotely comprehenisive.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html

This is an interesting summary of the Clinton v Bush with respect to anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11...

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml

If you listen to BushCo and other Republicans now, you'd think they invented the idea of fighting terrorism and forced it upon the Dems.

It's almost stunning to learn how hard the Republican Party worked to oppose Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism while he was in office. And completely stunning to see how hard the Bush Administration worked to undo the things that Clinton was actually able to accomplish in the 9 months between taking office and 9/11.

[jAZ]

Add this to the *shocking* list of hypocricy... I had forgotten completely about this bit of Disney political censorship by choice...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ex=1157688000&en=6d795a4beb3375b9&ei=5070

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: May 5, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

...

Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

...

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Odd that they have changed their opinion on the value of a "hightly charged partisan political battle" when the target seems to be Democrats rather than Republicans. Seems that they are less concerned about "cater(ing) to families of all political stripes" and more to Republicans stripes.

Not to mention the fact that this "major corporation" seems willing to forego the HUGE profits from F9/11 by trying to block it... and similarly forego HUGE profits ($40M + 2 nights lost of prime-time advertising) by running this partisan film.

*Shocking*

[jAZ]

and similarly forego HUGE profits ($40M + 2 nights lost of prime-time advertising)
I did a little looking around and ABC gets between $100K and $500K for each 30 second ad spot in prime time.

See: http://www.frankwbaker.com/2005-2006_ad_rates.htm

So conservatively assuming that the average is somewhere around $250K/30sec... and assuming that otherwise ABC would be running 16 minutes worth of ads per hour...

Over the course of the 6 hours across 2 nights... that's 192 commericals. At $250K each, ABC is foregoing approximately $48 million in ad revene.

The movie cost $40 million and they are airing it instead of programming that would otherwise command nearly $50 million in ad revenue.

$90 million pissed away on an admittedly factually inaccurate "docudrama" that tries to blame Clinton for 9/11.

In the run up to an election.

After saying that they as a policy are "not in the interest(ed) ... (in being) dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle".

Like I said.

Nothing to see here...

[jAZ]

$90 million pissed away on an admittedly factually inaccurate "docudrama" that tries to blame Clinton for 9/11.
To put this in more clear context...

This $90 million dollars pissed away in 2 days amounts to about $0.045 per share of Disney stock.

[dirk digler]

Glad you feel better, lol.

I was right with you for the first paragraph.

I think there were people who cared about terrorism during the 90's. Richard Lugar ran for president in 1996 saying that terrorism was the number one issue when very few paid much attention. You might be right that people around here weren't overly concerned about it (I certainly wasn't particularly concerned), but with the OK City bombing and a handful of other attacks, there were some who recognized the threat. By most accounts, Clinton's administration showed some level of recognition. The PNAC guys were focused on it and I know that the defense industry (along with their masters at the Pentagon) were preparing for a world in which asymetric warfare was an important fact of life. But in general, you're probably right that the average joe didn't give it too much thought.

I don't think we've gone to the opposite extreme now though and I think we have good leaders already. Big surprise, heh? :)

Thanks and I did feel much better.

I agree with that I was talking more about the average Joe.

Bush has done fine with the WOT, I disagree with him about Iraq, and his domestic policies are something less to be desired.

[dirk digler]

If by "here" you mean the members of CP-DC... then you might be pretty close to right. If by "here" you mean American citizens in general, then you are somewhat less right, but not too far off.

But if you mean the Clinton Administration... I'm not sure you could be farther from the truth.

While no one (including much of the mainstrem media) was listening, there was a MASSIVE effort to fight terrorism under Clinton.

This is a pretty good set of links on the subject, though not even remotely comprehenisive.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html

This is an interesting summary of the Clinton v Bush with respect to anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11...

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml

If you listen to BushCo and other Republicans now, you'd think they invented the idea of fighting terrorism and forced it upon the Dems.

It's almost stunning to learn how hard the Republican Party worked to oppose Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism while he was in office. And completely stunning to see how hard the Bush Administration worked to undo the things that Clinton was actually able to accomplish in the 9 months between taking office and 9/11.

Jaz I was talking mainly about the average Joe citizen and somewhat the government. We were in a economic boom in the mid-late 90's so IMVHO not to many people cared about what was happening outside their own wallet.

[dirk digler]

IMO they shouldn't show this movie unless they fixed the inaccuracies.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11_movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_corres pondent.htm

September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."

[patteeu]

Add this to the *shocking* list of hypocricy... I had forgotten completely about this bit of Disney political censorship by choice...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ex=1157688000&en=6d795a4beb3375b9&ei=5070

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: May 5, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

...

Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

...

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Odd that they have changed their opinion on the value of a "hightly charged partisan political battle" when the target seems to be Democrats rather than Republicans. Seems that they are less concerned about "cater(ing) to families of all political stripes" and more to Republicans stripes.

Not to mention the fact that this "major corporation" seems willing to forego the HUGE profits from F9/11 by trying to block it... and similarly forego HUGE profits ($40M + 2 nights lost of prime-time advertising) by running this partisan film.

*Shocking*

I can't imagine that this movie will be anything like the drivel that Michael Moore puts out. I guess we'll see this weekend. Of course, ThinkProgress has already made up your mind so you won't even have to watch.

[patteeu]

I did a little looking around and ABC gets between $100K and $500K for each 30 second ad spot in prime time.

See: http://www.frankwbaker.com/2005-2006_ad_rates.htm

So conservatively assuming that the average is somewhere around $250K/30sec... and assuming that otherwise ABC would be running 16 minutes worth of ads per hour...

Over the course of the 6 hours across 2 nights... that's 192 commericals. At $250K each, ABC is foregoing approximately $48 million in ad revene.

The movie cost $40 million and they are airing it instead of programming that would otherwise command nearly $50 million in ad revenue.

$90 million pissed away on an admittedly factually inaccurate "docudrama" that tries to blame Clinton for 9/11.

In the run up to an election.

After saying that they as a policy are "not in the interest(ed) ... (in being) dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle".

Like I said.

Nothing to see here...


LMAO @ "admittedly factually inaccurate"

[patteeu]

I don't think the "unusually good liar" was completely distracted by his affair with an intern, I think he was overly focused on domestic politics and paralyzed by political cowardice. Thank goodness for him that his national security advisor wasn't above stealing classified documents or the 9/11 report might not have gone so soft on him. As it was, his reported daily focus on the whereabouts of bin Laden didn't really get us anywhere in the end. :Poke:

[Cochise]

ABC is an arm of the Bush administration - comedy gold LMAO

ABC is IMO the most biased of the 3 major network media outlets in the post Rather era. Sure Britney Couric has her own baggage but there's no way she rules the copy with an iron fist like the Dan.

Add together Sawyer and their continual propping of Richard Clarke up in front of cameras, Charlie Gibson, go back to Peter Jennings' own laughable Jesus Seminar hit pieces, and it's not like this just happened either. Not too long ago I saw a link to a story on ABC's website, I'm too lazy to find it now, where Mikail Gorbachev was called the man who brought down the iron curtain!

I mean, come on. ABC has been a caricature of itself for a long time. And this is supposedly based on the 9/11 comission which - if you hold Congressmen grandstanding on TV as the highest authority on what happened, I dont know what to say to you. I have little interest in this and there's a 0% chance I watch anything made-for-tv these days, but the notion that ABC is sharing winks and nods with Karl Palpatine, as they'd style him, is pretty laughable.

[Chief Henry]

I don't think the "unusually good liar" was completely distracted by his affair with an intern, I think he was overly focused on domestic politics and paralyzed by political cowardice. Thank goodness for him that his national security advisor wasn't above stealing classified documents or the 9/11 report might not have gone so soft on him. As it was, his reported daily focus on the whereabouts of bin Laden didn't really get us anywhere in the end. :Poke:


rep heading your way for discribing Bill Clinton with the term
"political cowardice". Thats very accurate.

[Chiefnj]

It's good to see that this has turned into a conservative wankfest even though it has been shown that the movie is inaccurate and the Disney conglomerate hypocritical.

[stevieray]

"...conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible."

That quote properly sets the tone for any discussion of this movie from what I've read.



adressed this merit of discussion.

[stevieray]

I'm curious what people (DC Cons) think about ABC's role in this whole thing.

They are airing this pro-Bush, pro-Republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fakeumentary created by a Conservative Activist who's admittedly trying to manipulate the media to promote his conservative agenda during an election cycle and doing so at a loss of $40+ million dollars.

And not a peep in the mainstream media.

Not a word in the DC until today.

Can you image the outrage and 200 post threads we'd have in here had it been a Micheal Moore project being handled this way?

this one too.

[stevieray]

Are you guys so desperate that you would pretend to read the contents of a link provided so that you can dismiss it without actually bothering to read the whole thing... or *gasp* following the sourced links provided within?

I guess so...

Sad, shameful, pathetic guys. How it must suck to have reality collapsing in around your fantasy land.

yup, this is agreat merit of discussion

[stevieray]

Seriously. Sad. Pathetic. Delluded. Fragile. Reality is a bitch, huh?


awesome

[stevieray]

It's good to see that this has turned into a conservative wankfest even though it has been shown that the movie is inaccurate and the Disney conglomerate hypocritical.

We survived farenheit 9/11, I'm sure we'll survive this movie too.

[Chief Henry]

I see Jiz has been up all HOURS of the night to try
and cover the Bill Clintons azz on this subject.

[Boyceofsummer]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!

[patteeu]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!

Good to have you back, Boyce. Some of your recent posts made me think your account had been hijacked by a reasonsable person.

[Baby Lee]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!
Wooohooo!!!

That's Boyce Brand Crazy®, "It Makes It's Own Gravy!!!"

[Radar Chief]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!


“Damn the man!” :cuss: ROFL

[Mr. Kotter]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!

ROFLROFLROFL

[StcChief]

you RWNJ's have brought this country to the brink of WWIII and are the most voracious liars on this planet! You will stop at NOTHING to gain and maintain total control over America's citizens. This is nothing more than a continuation of the 'SWIFTBOAT' strategy. I blame YOU that have ever voted for this regime in power. YOU are the problem with America. You are the reason that we are hated around the world. YOU have become scum of this earth!

WWIII no...you can blame the Terrorist for that... or 'Do nothing' Billy Jeff Clinton worrying about when his D1ck was getting sucked next :rolleyes:

after the boys of summer have gone...wait this isn't the music thread.

[Boyceofsummer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4rVVq_1zc&search=bush%20president%20george%20hot%20click%20girls%20cheney%20shot%20man%20daily%20SNL%20digital %20short

COCK SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are his bitches.

[memyselfI]

If this is marketed as entertainment then I have no more problems with it than I did the movie of a Bush assassination movie. It's clearly a drama with political overtones and as such we should watch it with that in mind.

If it's being marketed as based on historical facts but also ads ficitionalized elements that did not exist on the record and are not true then I have a big problem with it. It's one thing to unfairly characterize elements of a person or an administration. It's quite another to CREATE unfair or untrue elements.

[patteeu]

If by "poetic license" and "essential facts appear to be correct" you mean specificlly naming Clinton as having personally being contacted and having personally "refuse(d) authorization" when you yourself disagree with that "fact".

I'll bet you that that's not in the movie.

Holy Christ!

ROFL

http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg

Does that mean you'll take my bet?


Looks like you made the right choice not to take my bet, jAZ. Just as I suspected, it wasn't in the movie. Told you.



.

[jAZ]

Looks like you made the right choice not to take my bet, jAZ. Just as I suspected, it wasn't in the movie. Told you.



.
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[patteeu]

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Not even an apology? I guess the less you have to say, the better off you are at this point.

[jAZ]

Not even an apology? I guess the less you have to say, the better off you are at this point.
Wait... were you originally trying to tell me that it was never in the movie, or that ABC would eventually make edits that would remove the fabricated lies from that scene and allow them a window to continue to air their propaganda movie?

(This is your chance to rewrite history to fit your efforts on this thread... choose wisely.)

[patteeu]

Wait... were you originally trying to tell me that it was never in the movie, or that ABC would eventually make edits that would remove the fabricated lies from that scene and allow them a window to continue to air their propaganda movie?

(This is your chance to rewrite history to fit your efforts on this thread... choose wisely.)

It was never in the movie.

This is your chance to say, "You were right, patteeu."

[jAZ]

It was never in the movie.

This is your chance to say, "You were right, patteeu."
I'm still not sure which out you are seeking here...

You seem to have chosen squishy words. You aren't declaring "It was never going to be in the movie"... you aren't saying "It wasn't in the movie when it aired"... have selected a hybrid of words that give you wiggle room to avoid being specific.

Go ahead and be perfectly clear about what you meant to say before. It's your lone chance to rewrite history. I'll take you for your word as to what you were trying to say before... just say it clearly and without wiggle words.

[patteeu]

I'm still not sure which out you are seeking here...

You seem to have chosen squishy words. You aren't declaring "It was never going to be in the movie"... you aren't saying "It wasn't in the movie when it aired"... have selected a hybrid of words that give you wiggle room to avoid being specific.

Go ahead and be perfectly clear about what you meant to say before. It's your lone chance to rewrite history. I'll take you for your word as to what you were trying to say before... just say it clearly and without wiggle words.

There are no wiggle words intended here. It wasn't in the movie last night and I don't believe it was ever in the movie. Which out are you going for? The one where you keep trying to change the subject instead of admitting that your fears were wrong and my assurances of that fact turned out to be right on the money?

P.S. It wasn't in the movie last night. It wasn't in the movie last week. It was never in the movie. It was never intended to be in the movie. Etc. Govindini Murty was careless with what he/she wrote, just as I told you last week. It shouldn't have been taken literally like you took it, it should have been seen as a reference to Clinton's administration rather than the individual, just as I took it before you pointed out your literal (and incorrect) interpretation.

[jAZ]

There are no wiggle words intended here.
...
I don't believe it was ever in the movie. Which out are you going for? The one where you keep trying to change the subject instead of admitting that your fears were wrong and my assurances of that fact turned out to be right on the money?

P.S. It wasn't in the movie last night. It wasn't in the movie last week. It was never in the movie. It was never intended to be in the movie. Etc. Govindini Murty was careless with what he/she wrote, just as I told you last week. It shouldn't have been taken literally like you took it, it should have been seen as a reference to Clinton's administration rather than the individual, just as I took it before you pointed out your literal (and incorrect) interpretation.
So to be clear... You aren't merely asking me to aplogize because what you meant to say last week was that if it ever were in there it would not make it on the air. You aren't going for the "I didn't see the quote last night... and that's what I was always talking about" revision?

Kudos to you. If you had chosen that out, I would have trusted that the scene wasn't there (since I didn't watch it) and I would have said "you were right, it wasn't there".

But intstead, you are trying to pretend that it is a "fact" that "It was never in the movie. It was never intended to be in the movie."

You declare this to be fact, even though you just finished admitting that even today it remains merely your "belie(f)"... your feeling... your anything but "fact".

And you want me to apologize based on the fact that you wave your hands around and try to conflate "fact" with "belief" and fiction?

Don't you see the irony here?

No, you don't get an aplogy.

You should be ashamed of yourself for doing the exact same thing that ABC and the conservative propagandist producers did in the movie. Present fiction as fact and hope no one notices the difference.

There was a time when you weren't so dishonest in your behavior. We disagreed and you had a severe detachment from reality, but you never played RINGLEADER-esque hocus-pocus with language.

This is pretty shameful behavior man.

I'm not waiting around for an apology, though I deserve one.

[stevieray]

I'm not waiting around for an apology, though I deserve one.

ROFL

[mlyonsd]

You should be ashamed of yourself for doing the exact same thing that ABC and the conservative propagandist producers did in the movie. Present fiction as fact and hope no one notices the difference.



Things are looking up for the right seeing as now they have Fox and ABC on their side.

[mlyonsd]

If this is marketed as entertainment then I have no more problems with it than I did the movie of a Bush assassination movie. It's clearly a drama with political overtones and as such we should watch it with that in mind.

If it's being marketed as based on historical facts but also ads ficitionalized elements that did not exist on the record and are not true then I have a big problem with it. It's one thing to unfairly characterize elements of a person or an administration. It's quite another to CREATE unfair or untrue elements.

I never knew you had problems with 911 Farenheit. Kudos to you for admitting it.

[Adept Havelock]

I never knew you had problems with 911 Farenheit. Kudos to you for admitting it.

ROFL

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petar: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

[patteeu]

So to be clear... You aren't merely asking me to aplogize because what you meant to say last week was that if it ever were in there it would not make it on the air. You aren't going for the "I didn't see the quote last night... and that's what I was always talking about" revision?

Kudos to you. If you had chosen that out, I would have trusted that the scene wasn't there (since I didn't watch it) and I would have said "you were right, it wasn't there".

But intstead, you are trying to pretend that it is a "fact" that "It was never in the movie. It was never intended to be in the movie."

You declare this to be fact, even though you just finished admitting that even today it remains merely your "belie(f)"... your feeling... your anything but "fact".

And you want me to apologize based on the fact that you wave your hands around and try to conflate "fact" with "belief" and fiction?

Don't you see the irony here?

No, you don't get an aplogy.

You should be ashamed of yourself for doing the exact same thing that ABC and the conservative propagandist producers did in the movie. Present fiction as fact and hope no one notices the difference.

There was a time when you weren't so dishonest in your behavior. We disagreed and you had a severe detachment from reality, but you never played RINGLEADER-esque hocus-pocus with language.

This is pretty shameful behavior man.

I'm not waiting around for an apology, though I deserve one.

To be clear, your error has been exposed. When you find something that says they cut the scene where Clinton was personally called and asked to grant permission for a bin Laden hit/capture, be sure to post it. I won't hold my breath. LMAO

[jAZ]

To be clear, your error has been exposed. When you find something that says they cut the scene where Clinton was personally called and asked to grant permission for a bin Laden hit/capture, be sure to post it. I won't hold my breath. LMAO
Translation:

"I'm sorry jAZ. I should never have bumped this thread. :banghead:"

[patteeu]

Translation:

"I'm sorry jAZ. I should never have bumped this thread. :banghead:"

I don't know why I'd be sorry about it. I was right and you were wrong. Your deflections don't mask that fact.

[jAZ]

I don't know why I'd be sorry about it. I was right and you were wrong. Your deflections don't mask that fact.
Fact=Fiction

It's the conservative way.