Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.  
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 38
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk...,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.

The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense....


-snip-

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved....

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...hop_________post_correspondent.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....

What an egomaniac Clinton is. As when he was in office, it is all about him and his legacy. We've seen short films and documentaries for the past few years about Bush's intelligence failures when he took office and nary has a word been uttered from the current President's administration about it, positive or negative. No one was screaming for the networks to pull the plug on those pieces or alter them. From all accounts, this film skewers Bush and Clinton equally for their mistakes. Besides, do you seriously think that ABC would actually air something that took a conservative slant?

Poor Sandy Berger, too. Here we have a guy who was caught stealing documents related to 9/11 and apparently the film was "too harsh" on him. Well, geez, for someone who was trying to keep papers out of the hands of the 9/11 commission, you wouldn't think he had an integral part of the failure to act on Bin Laden. Would you?

The Clinton legacy is in a precipitous fall (as many predicted it would be) and it looks like Slick is willing to do anything, including trying to halt a film that casts him in a bad light, to keep it intact. What an egomaniac. I'm willing to say that Bush also did not take the threats before 9/11 seriously enough, but from all indications, Clinton is as guilty, if not more-so than Bush.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
Slick

I do have to point out, that the use of this term to refer to the former president, is just as disrespectful to the office of the president as some of the terms used to describe Bush are, that are so hated and called out by his supporters.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
I do have to point out, that the use of this term to refer to the former president, is just as disrespectful to the office of the president as some of the terms used to describe Bush are, that are so hated and called out by his supporters.

Truthfully, I could care less. We don't live in Thailand or North Korea. I could care less what nicknames Bush is called. The bottom line is that everytime something potentially damaging happens to the Clinton administration (today or when he was in office), its always spin, spin, spin, cover, cover, cover.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved....

I dont know and dont really care about Clinton wanting things to be accurate according to his mind, but I really do get a kick out of all the right wingers out there who bash Clinton for not signing the order to kill him, but if it would have been done, I can guarantee you that the GOP would be throwing fits about not being able to get the job done in 5 years just as GWB has not been able to do. Plus I can only imagine the reaction from much of the GOP and the Bush family itself having Clinton signing the order to have a family member of a friend killed.


User currently offlineSantosdumont From Brazil, joined Dec 2003, 1201 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
spin, spin, spin, cover, cover, cover.

You've summed up the modus operandi of all presidential administrations.

To try to distill the blame on Clinton for not getting UBL is sophomoric in the extreme; then again, to assume that Clinton and Bush are all that different is just as myopic.



"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
The bottom line is that everytime something potentially damaging happens to the Clinton administration (today or when he was in office), its always spin, spin, spin, cover, cover, cover.

What's changed (other than the name of the guy in charge)?


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Jcs you wouldn't know what the truth was it if hit you in your butt with a bass fiddle.

This stuff, coming from you, is so lacking in credibility as to be laughable. Of course you want to blame Clinton for 9/11. It gets your hero off the hook, so you can continue to kiss his ass.

The truth is 9/11 was a NATIONAL failure-not one of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, but a collective, national failure, that dates back long before the actual attacks took place.

I think you're the one who can't handle the truth.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
What an egomaniac Clinton is. As when he was in office, it is all about him and his legacy. We've seen short films and documentaries for the past few years about Bush's intelligence failures when he took office and nary has a word been uttered from the current President's administration about it, positive or negative. No one was screaming for the networks to pull the plug on those pieces or alter them. From all accounts, this film skewers Bush and Clinton equally for their mistakes. Besides, do you seriously think that ABC would actually air something that took a conservative slant?

Stuff your childish rants where they belong - and go get a job and make yourself useful.

This film is fall of patent falsehoods, but is being promoted by Disney/ABC as fact and based on the 9-11 Commission's Report. Those who have openly stated that events in this film that damn the Clinton administration are patently false include Richard Clarke, Thomas Kean, former REpublican Senator Slade Gorton, and the entire 9-11 Commission.

It's one thing for Disney/ABC to make up fictional characters that no one has ever heard of. It's a whole different issue to make up crap about real people and have them say things in this film that openly damn them. That's defamatory and fodder for legal action. How shameless does one have to be to create a piece of propagandist pap with patent falsehoods about one of the most tragic events in American history?

And, NO, the film does not equally damn both Clinton and Bush. If it did so, it would have made up rubbish about Bush. But it doesn't.

The film was made by Cyrus Nowrasteh, a right winger who's a buddy of that gasbag, Rush Limbaugh; its producer at ABC came from Fox News and has known ties to right wing commentators. This film is also being aired on Sep. 10-11 without ANY commercials, and 100,000 copies are being distributed by ABC "FREE" to schools across the country. What's more ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to be the advisor on the film, and rebuked offers by others.

The following are the lies being promoted by this film:

In one scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone.

FALSE. Never happened.

In another scene, the Washington Post is accused of blowing the secret that US intelligence tracked OBL's calls.

FALSE. That responsiblity rests wit that purveyor of right wing garbage - the Washington Times.

This is Roger Cressey, who served in the Bush White House as a top homeland security official, on the Scarborough Report:

CRESSY: Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful

Now who can't handle the truth? Looks like its you and the worthless thugs you worship.

Using the events of 9-11 in a propagandist piece that disrespects the 3,000 dead is an outright disgrace - and right before an election that threatens the GOP's hold in Congress.

Do these people have no shame whatsoever? Do you?

[Edited 2006-09-08 01:15:33]

User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
What an egomaniac Clinton



Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
skewers Bush and Clinton



Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
looks like Slick



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
I do have to point out, that the use of this term to refer to the former president, is just as disrespectful to the office of the president as some of the terms used to describe Bush are, that are so hated and called out by his supporters.

 checkmark  I fully agree with Westy on this one.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
Truthfully, I could care less. We don't live in Thailand or North Korea. I could care less what nicknames Bush is called. The bottom line is that everytime something potentially damaging happens to the Clinton administration (today or when he was in office), its always spin, spin, spin, cover, cover, cover.

It has long been an issue I've raised here on A.net. Whether you disagree with the president (No matter if it is President Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Pierce, Taft, etc..) you should have enough common decency to refer to the office of the presidency with the respect it deserves.

The level of disrespect you're displaying under-cuts your argument and detracts from your personal image.

You do not have to respect the man, but you should at least know enough to respect the office.

-UH60


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Please, do carry on. Old stories retold are fun!

It's so pathetic how some Clinton-bashers blame everything and its mother on his administration. The ones to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who committed the acts, everyone else may have been able to do more to stop them but certainly can't be blamed for the attacks. Not Clinton, not Bush.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
Truthfully, I could care less. We don't live in Thailand or North Korea. I could care less what nicknames Bush is called.

Hey Einstein, I think what you mean to say is, you couldn't care less. Which, of course comes as no surprise.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

If President Bush was demanding that ABC change the movie, then the left and their allies in the media would be howling with rage about censorship and coverups.

But since it is Bill Clinton, the darling of the Left and the media, then it is perfectly okay. Can’t have anything that might tarnish his house of cards legacy and hurt Hillary’s chances in 2008 now can we?

Even better, can you imagine what would have happened if President Bush and the Republicans had demanded that Fahrenheit 911 not be shown? The left would have gone totally berserk claiming that “Bush wants to prevent people from seeing the truth.”

[Edited 2006-09-08 01:36:00]


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2333 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2110 times:








Where did everybody go?
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):

Well said. That post was good to read an unexpected.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 11):
But since it is Bill Clinton, the darling of the Left and the media, then it is perfectly okay.

Come on. As you see, "the Right" is certainly flaming Clinton for what he's doing. And i don't quite think ABC likes what he's saying either, so according to you, "the media" is arguing with its very own "darling".

And since we're digging up old stories, anyone remember how the big, bad, pinko-commie liberal media reported no single bit of the Lewinski saga whatsoever?  sarcastic 



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 11):
If President Bush was demanding that ABC change the movie, then the left and their allies in the media would be howling with rage about censorship and coverups.

Cut the crap.

This movie is full of blatant lies, lies that have no place in a film that is being promoted as the definitive film on 9-11, and one being promoted as true to the findings of the 9-11 commission.

Instead it does a rapid 180 turnaround on the facts and gives us lies. Lies that have been exposed by individuals across the political spectrum.

Whatever your political inclinations, playing fast and loose with the facts surrounding the tragedy of 9-11 should make anyone, of any political persuasion want to hurl.

But then again, there are people like you.

Quoting B757300:

Even better, can you imagine what would have happened if President Bush and the Republicans had demanded that Fahrenheit 911 not be shown? The left would have gone totally berserk claiming that “Bush wants to prevent people from seeing the truth.”

Don't equate the two.

F9-11 never stated that it was factually true, or that it was based on the findings of an official body. It was clear from the start that the film reflected the political leanings of its maker, and that much of it was based on innuendo and surmised "evidence." And where in F9-11 does it show an actor playing President Bush mouthing make-believe words? The ABC film does the equivalent of just that.

[Edited 2006-09-08 01:48:26]

User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
The truth is 9/11 was a NATIONAL failure-not one of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, but a collective, national failure, that dates back long before the actual attacks took place.

If we all had this attitude, we could all move on from 9/11. NONE here could have predicted 9/11, even though the signs were there. If someone had foretold 9/11 in 9/10, they would have been laughed off.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 9):
It's so pathetic how some Clinton-bashers blame everything and its mother on his administration. The ones to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who committed the acts, everyone else may have been able to do more to stop them but certainly can't be blamed for the attacks. Not Clinton, not Bush.

Agreed completely, and with all the fingerpointing from BOTH SIDES, some have lost sight of the real enemies.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 11):
If President Bush was demanding that ABC change the movie, then the left and their allies in the media would be howling with rage about censorship and coverups.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9371 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

regardless---the origins of 9/11 fall back way into the 1970's. perhaps even before that.


if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 15):
Quoting B757300 (Reply 11):If President Bush was demanding that ABC change the movie, then the left and their allies in the media would be howling with rage about censorship and coverups.
 
 checkmark 
 

So you guys are now saying that Disney isn't part of the leftist Hollywood agenda?

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 17):
So you guys are now saying that Disney isn't part of the leftist Hollywood agenda?

The news have stated that most, both left and right, were placed under a bad light. But only the left has complained. So no flip flop here.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9371 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
The news have stated that most, both left and right, were placed under a bad light. But only the left has complained.

please tell me this is an attempt at being funny.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
The news have stated that most, both left and right, were placed under a bad light. But only the left has complained. So no flip flop here.

Scroll back to Reply #7 and the quotes Jaysit provided.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):

Scroll back to Reply #7 and the quotes Jaysit provided.

Read it, and it sounds to be directly from here:
http://www.democrats.org
So I went to another site, to find out what the right wing says. And Rush Limbaugh says this:
"After you watch it you don't just blame a particular administration or two or three people. You really are hit with the idea that we've got such a bloated bureaucracy that can't communicate with itself, and we have people who were unwilling to deal with this because it was hard, and what happened, happened: 9/11 happened."
But the better question is, is this censorship?
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

I heard about this on the radio while driving into work this morning....

I had to laugh...



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 21):
But the better question is, is this censorship?

No, the better question is, do you, AndesSMF, want the truth, or not the truth?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 21):
http://www.democrats.org

Takes me to the front page of the website, not to what you quoted.

BTW, here's a biography of Roger Cressey, and he seems to be fairly well-rounded.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_W._Cressey

Joe Scarborough can hardly be called "leftist" in anyone's book, yet he had him on his program.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):
its always spin, spin, spin, cover, cover, cover.

Boy, I'm sure glad it's not like that with President Bush!

-DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
25 AirCop : If I remember right, wasn't it the right wing that protested the Reagan movie that was to appear on CBS, that the network moved it to cable. The same
26 AndesSMF : I would throw that right back at you. I never have faulted anyone for the lapses of 9/11 and I would not start now. So this movie changes nothing for
27 LTBEWR : I do have deep problems with the apparent poorly and allegedly incorrectly presented criticism of the Clinton Administration and the weak criticism of
28 AeroWesty : But you'll use it unabashedly and without any remorse to take an undeserving swipe at the left.
29 Halls120 : I agree. But given all of the "Bush is an idiot" insults coming from the left, it's hard to get worked up over the "slick willy" comments coming from
30 AndesSMF : The left is the one complaining about the movie now.
31 AeroWesty : But your original point was that if this was about Bush, it'd still be the left howling. Read AirCop's reply #25. You guys have had your own field da
32 Falcon84 : Well, in my eyes, he is the root of everything that is wrong with this nation and where it is headed. But I'd be surprised if you hear one Democrat r
33 AndesSMF : Is that the post you are referring to? Because the way I see it that point still applies. And to clarify myself again, I dont blame anyone but the te
34 Post contains links Halls120 : You are correct. While no democrat running for office will blame Bush for 9/11, their surrogates will. This is but a mere sampling..... Captain's Qua
35 Post contains links Gilligan : Who was President from 1993 to 2001? Who had ample opportunities to either kill or capture OBL and put a serious dent in Al Queda's operations and fi
36 JCS17 : Reagan in 2003 was on death's door, no thanks to Alzheimers. Many of us who protested "The Reagans" believed it was very disrespectful (though not il
37 UH60FtRucker : It's not so much the nicknames that bothers me - and it certainly isn't the personal attacks on the man himself - it's about the office. I think that
38 Post contains images TedTAce : There will always be some debate on who did what when, but there are some immutable facts. One thing I have yet to be corrected on is the 'fact' that
39 JCS17 : His title? He is not the King of Thailand, he is not Dearest Leader, and he certainly isn't God. He is the The President of the United States, and it
40 Halls120 : Here's the deal on this particularly sordid event. Once you are a Washington "insider," the rules no longer apply. You get preferential treatment in
41 Scamp : Not like Shrubya who just lies and misleads.
42 VSLover : called reading/watching the news. maybe if 51% of americans did the same in 2004 so many wouldnt actually think iraq had anything to do with 9/11. th
43 Halls120 : I agree. But until you've actually SEEN the movie, how can you objectively conclude that any of it is inaccurate?
44 VSLover : admittedly, until i see it i cannot say with 100% confidence. however, i can deduce that a large part of my assumption is accurate simply based on th
45 DL021 : I'm going to hold back judgement until I see this, but I'll definitely say that many of the same people who bitch here are the same ones who place unw
46 Dvk : This is simply untrue. Yes, the economy was cooling, but it was not a recession. And according to the W administration, the economy's been rosy the e
47 AndesSMF : As a question, who was president when the NASDAQ peaked and the dot.com bubble burst?
48 Post contains links AeroWesty : Clinton, of course. Remember that the NASDAQ first crossed the 1,000 mark 3 years into his administration, and went up a further 5x before it finally
49 Jalto27R : Yes, but you can also say the same for Bush-bashers. People who get sucked into the political BS of any party always jump at every oppurtunity to bla
50 AndesSMF : Reason I mentioned this was because I asked my brother-in-law that question once and his answer was 'Bush'. But no, I dont blame Clinton for that bub
51 Superfly : Sounds like Jcs17 really misses the years of Clinton-bashing of the 1990s.
52 AeroWesty : Why? I read post after post after post of people saying how great the U.S. is from an entrepreneur's standpoint, and they don't want to be overtaxed
53 AndesSMF : I dont know what I would like to see, really. But during the dot.com era and now during the runup in housing prices, you could see what was occurring
54 Post contains images Halls120 : that was a scandalous decision by then-SecDef Aspin. Well, Clinton appointed Aspin, didn't he? Don't forget the Amazon farce. the growth of the Dow i
55 Post contains images Aloges : It'd all be so much fun if it wasn't about the people (mis)leading our countries at varying degrees of incompetence.
56 AeroWesty : I don't want to take this thread off-topic onto a subject it's not about, but if that were true, the Dow would have fallen sharply, like the NASDAQ,
57 DL021 : I must disagree.....President Clinton has acknowledged that he erred in not taking Bin-Laden into custody when he was offered up by the Sudanese. The
58 Falcon84 : Say that again Ian? We've heard countlessly from the GOP and from their supporters that this is the most robust economy of all time. Another outright
59 Dvk : I listened to Madeleine Albright's testimony during the 9/11 investigation, and she stated in clear, direct, unmistakable, and undisputed terms how m
60 AirCop : [quote=AndesSMF,reply=56]. But my wish would be thatrnthernpowers-that-be take some action to prevent these bubbles fromrnformingrnin the first place.
61 Jaysit : Who's worshipping at the altar of Clinton? I don't even like the Clintons. And what does Sandy Berger's document scandal have to do with this? Stick
62 Halls120 : Of course she would say that. Then again, I don't recall any internal Administration initiatives led by State that addressed the emerging threat of t
63 Post contains links AndesSMF : "Hawaii Democrats are using the controversial and mythical film Fahrenheit 9/11 produced by Democrat and Bush-hater Michael Moore at a series of loca
64 Dvk : Your hyperbole doesn't make what Albright said false. That the Republicans didn't close ranks and collectively call her a liar is the greatest testim
65 We're Nuts : "Clinton Administration". Now there's a word for nostalgic ears. Seriously, though, move on.
66 Texdravid : You, that's who. You fight for them like you are on their payroll, then crack that you don't even like them. Your words here betray you. Sandy Burgla
67 Post contains links GuitrThree : This is a very interesting discussion with one major point being dismissed. Thursday, 5 Democrats in the Senate sent a threatening letter to ABC deman
68 Halls120 : What the republicans did or didn't do is irrelevant to the fact that the Clinton Administration put fighting terrorism on the back burner throughout
69 Lucky42 : That's because Clinton was too busy chasing bush and I don't mean George. I can honestly say now that hate both parties with equal enthusiasm. I have
70 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I did not read this entire thread. I only wanted to comment on something related to this 'special' television presentation I saw on the news this mor
71 FDXmech : Conversely Bush is very aggresive despite the Dems in Congress fighting him at every turn. Sadly the Democratic Party has crossed the Rubicon and app
72 AirCop : I'm wondering what in the final hour of the show. President Bush has requested the networks give him time at 9pm EDT for a presidental address. That w
73 Express1 : spin,spin,spin,cover up,cover up, cover up. does this include all goverments around the world?, i could not trust anyone who leads this country (UK)
74 Post contains images Halls120 : Yes, the irony of Clinton claiming he only wants people to tell the truth was rich. But it really isn't all that odd when you think about it. He only
75 Aloges : Rich it is. But I'd rather have a President lying about a personal sexual affair than one taking my country to a war that can't be won. For the curre
76 AeroWesty : What I find interesting about this thread is that nearly without exception, the right-leaning posters have taken the opportunity to make swipes at Cli
77 GuitrThree : Ummm, no. Were not. First, I'm an exception. I think the Democrats are fighting this because it makes THEM look bad after all these attempts to give
78 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I suppose you've a point. So in that light - surely I want history portrayed properly. Dramatiziation or otherwise (it's a "dramatization" ABC says),
79 Halls120 : I'd rather have a president tell the truth, period. To be fair, when a film that portrayed Reagan in less than flattering terms, the republicans did
80 PPVRA : Because they are attacking their reaction, not the movie. I think both sides want the truth to be told (after all, we are all in the same boat). Chee
81 AeroWesty : Point out where I ever said that. All I asked for was those who are using this forum to take swipes at Clinton to say "I'd like to see a factual port
82 BH : Michael Moore?
83 PPVRA : Because he's a politician and no one knows if he is trying to seek out the truth or cover up something that is going to bring about bad political ram
84 Post contains images Halls120 : I disagree. Partisans in both parties generally want the story told that is flattering to their party and unflattering to the OP.
85 GuitrThree : Simple Yes or no: So you are willing to say that ABC should show the film, in it's entirety, uneditded? Yes or no. If no, why not?
86 AeroWesty : Nothing like trying to avoid having to back up your statement, eh? I'll be more than happy to answer your question once you either backup your statem
87 Aloges : So if you could choose between Clinton's lie about a blowjob and your brother/son/cousin or yourself being attacked by Iraqi insurgents, which would
88 Post contains links Tbar220 : I read the thread and think there's a lot of stupid, childish, personal attacks going on here instead of just focusing on the issue at hand. The issue
89 GuitrThree : Well, there you go. If you need to see it your damn self again. AndesSMF asked if this is censorship, you responded with "do you want the truth or no
90 Post contains links Tbar220 : A few other things, the basic premise of the opening post is false. It says "Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth" claims that what ABC is passin
91 Aloges : Maybe it's because the truth has so little entertainment value?
92 Post contains images Halls120 : How is the latter a lie? In any event, as I've said before, I think a president or PM - every elected or appointed leader, for that matter - should t
93 AeroWesty : This is where you've read my post incorrectly. I did not "convincingly say that this film is not accurate" in my question to Andes. I asked a questio
94 Tbar220 : And we wonder why we have such a hard time respectfully disagreeing with eachother. If we want to have a decent discussion with disagreement, the bas
95 Post contains links Aloges : The reasons given for the war were lies - mainly, there was no "smoking gun" threat to the US or any other Western nation. For my opinion on Saddam h
96 Halls120 : I'd prefer to never choose between one lie and another lie. All that does is encourage more lying.
97 Post contains links AeroWesty : A hat tip to a thread-starter in Civ-Av who mentions this blog entry: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006...can-airlines-to-blame-for-911.html Americ
98 Gilligan : What does that have to do with anything? The show is based, according to the published info, on the 9/11 Commission findings. Libs had no trouble wit
99 Aerokiwi : Odd. I consider myself mildly right-wing (liberal in the European sense - who even knows what it means in the American system anymore) and I consider
100 Halls120 : Most of the "idiot" comments do come from the traditional left. The rest come from smug and righteous outsiders, who believe what they want because i
101 Aerokiwi : Actually, the argument wherever I travel has switched from Bush being genuinely evil to simply being utterly incompetent in his work. Hence, an idiot
102 Post contains images Halls120 : The above is a statement I can understand and partially agree with. But it is far from saying that Bush is an idiot, which is nothing more than an un
103 Gilligan : A quick check of the economy might prove that assessment to be a little biased towards foreign policy. But then you don't hear a lot of stories about
104 Aerokiwi : Yes there's nothing like an economy built on household debt and massive budget deficits to finance wartime spending to really make an economy "boom".
105 Halls120 : Since when does failure equal idiocy? LOL, good one! Just don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. it's been fun, but we'll have to reengag
106 Gilligan : It's been that way for awhile. Keep pushing the doom and gloom. I see they opened a new Wal Mart in China just the other day.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"You Can't Handle The Truth!" posted Fri Feb 11 2005 14:55:17 by Mirrodie
Why Can't Conservatives Forget The Clinton BJ? posted Fri Apr 21 2006 09:59:53 by TedTAce
Moore Has Shaky Handle On 'truth' posted Mon Jun 28 2004 17:55:33 by Psa188
Can One Freeze Pesto? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 12:34:12 by JGPH1A
Can Nerdy Browncoats Rejoice? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 16:25:42 by MDorBust
Can I Have Syrup With My Wafflers, Please posted Tue Dec 5 2006 20:58:51 by YooYoo
"Cuban Exile" - Can They Make A Better Cuba? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 18:45:32 by Bofredrik
Can I Have Those Fingers Please (quitar) posted Fri Dec 1 2006 19:03:30 by BR076
Finally We Can All Now Forgive George W. Bush... posted Mon Nov 27 2006 03:45:45 by Derico
How Can O.J. Simpson Keep The Money? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 03:48:58 by SSTsomeday