jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:22 am

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!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:30 am

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
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:42 am

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!
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:42 am

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.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:55 am

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
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:59 am

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)?
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:01 am

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:10 am

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]
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:21 am

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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:25 am

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.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:28 am

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.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:29 am

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."
 
aaflt1871
Posts: 2166
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:29 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:33 am





Where did everybody go?
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:38 am

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 
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:41 am

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]
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:44 am

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 
 
stlgph
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

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
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:51 am

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
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:55 am

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.
 
stlgph
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:13 am

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
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:18 am

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
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:07 am

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&
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:15 am

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:17 am

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
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:20 am

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.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting JCS17 (Thread starter):
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....

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 stuff misrepresents, etc.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:51 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
No, the better question is, do you, AndesSMF, want the truth, or not the truth?



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 15):
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.

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 me.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12394
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:56 am

I do have deep problems with the apparent poorly and allegedly incorrectly presented criticism of the Clinton Administration and the weak criticism of Bush in this 'docudrama' as to the events leading before the acts of 9/11.
First of all, the 9/11 attacks and many other attacks against the USA including the 1993 WTC truck bomb attack, and the many outside like the USA (USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa, the Kobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon and others), are the product of 50+ years of Cold War and post-cold war policy of a number of Presidents and our public. Our policy wasn't about the rights of the people there, but rather to protect the access to the oil in the Middle East for ourselves, our companies and that of our allies, as well as the absolute protection of Israel. Just putting blame on Clinton or even Bush as to the 9/11 attacks is wrong.
This is not to say that there isn't room to criticize Clinton or Bush as to their anti-terror policies. Clinton to me was not nasty enough in going after the 1993 WTC bombers - he should have found some way to execute them all. Clinton feared too much getting into a confrontation with anybody in the Middle East for fear of ending up where we are now under Bush and putting Israel at risk. For much of Clinton's administration and to his credit, he tried to defuse the middle east situation in part working with Israel on the 'road map' peace plan. There was a deep lack of reliable intelligence about and knowledge of the Islamic world for many, many years and continuing to this day. That also made it difficult to attack the groups that did these terror attacks or prevent them. Clinton also kept Saddam in check with sanctions. Despite their serious flaws as to the common Iraqi, those sanctions apparently did hurt Saddam, kept the Kurds and Shites calm and kept the oil flowing.
While some minor edits are planned for this presentation to try to curb some of the alleged inaccuracies, they should have approached with more balance in it's production, writing and advisers.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:57 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 26):
I never have faulted anyone for the lapses of 9/11 and I would not start now.

But you'll use it unabashedly and without any remorse to take an undeserving swipe at the left.
International Homo of Mystery
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:08 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
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.

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 the right. Civility has been left in the gutter by both sides, and what's really depressing is that neither side has guts to admit they are wrong to demonize Bush and Clinton the way they have and continue to do.

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.

Again, I agree. But let's be fair, current leaders of the democratic party are going to spend the next few months claiming Bush is the root of all evil.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 14):
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.

Actually, ABC has already conceded that they will change their promos. The film will be advertised as being based in part on the 9/11 Commission Report.

A question, though for all the people who are criticizing the film. How many of you have actually seen it?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:18 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
But you'll use it unabashedly and without any remorse to take an undeserving swipe at the left.

The left is the one complaining about the movie now.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 30):
The left is the one complaining about the movie now.

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 day. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:26 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
Again, I agree. But let's be fair, current leaders of the democratic party are going to spend the next few months claiming Bush is the root of all evil.

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 running for office blame Mr. Bush for 9/11.

I would NOT be surprised if a few Republicons running try to blame Mr. Clinton for it.

Only one problem-the American people aren't buying either argument, if they're brought up. And the bigger problem for the GOP is that a majority of Americans have had enough of GOP scare-mongering as it is.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:33 am

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.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
But your original point was that if this was about Bush, it'd still be the left howling.

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 terrorists for what occurred. But it still doesnt make it right that Clinton and the democratic party is asking for changes to a script, with the veiled threat as shown on the press release above. And it wouldnt be right if the GOP did the same thing.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:42 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
But I'd be surprised if you hear one Democrat running for office blame Mr. Bush for 9/11.

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 Quarters
Hillary 'Endorses' Blaming Bush For 9/11 Terrorism. One of the lessons a politician learns is to be careful what she autographs. According to the New York ...
www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005484.php - 69k - Sep 6, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Blame 9/11 on Airlines, Congress, Bush
Blame 9/11 on Airlines, Congress, Bush. by Andrew Greeley. The fifth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack is coming up soon. ...
www.commondreams.org/views06/0901-26.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

September 11 Tragedy: Why did it happen?
When he was killed on 9/11, John O'Neill was the head of World Trade Center security. ... House of Bush House of Saud ~ The Secret Relationship Between the ...
www.hereinreality.com/conspiracy/ - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

isntapundit : The Left Hand of Rightness
The headline should properly have been, "Bush Campaign Ads Anger Anti-Bush Activists, Democrat Stalwarts, And People Who Blame Bush For 9/11". ...
isntapundit.com/?date=20040306 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:06 pm

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.

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 finances prior to 9/11? 8 years versus 9 months, who had more time to deal with it?

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
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.



Quoting Jaysit (Reply 14):
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.

Have you seen the film? Has anyone you have quoted seen the film?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...1.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries


Get that, told, not seen, but told. In other words hearsay evidence. So now we are going to censor based on hearsay.

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada commented on the controversy at a morning news conference.

"I haven't seen it, but from everything I've heard it's not down the middle. It's not fair at all. And to have a film that seems to be biased and take one side put on by a network seems to be the wrong thing to do," said Schumer

They started off this as being a documentary," added Reid. "They changed it to a docudrama and now it's a work of fiction and that's what it is. And, yes, they should pull it."


Not one of the principals involved says they have seen the film, ABC points out that no one has seen the final version, yet oh how they wail. I smell censorship by pressure. ABC is running it without commercial interruptions, at least that takes Jackson and Sharpton out of the picture, no one to extort from this time.

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.



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):
You do not have to respect the man, but you should at least know enough to respect the office.

Big difference between insulting the office and insulting a former office holder. Former Presidents, especially those that decide to critique the current holder of office, no matter who he or she might be, open themselves up to criticism just as any other talking head does IMO. It's sad to see a nearly 225 year old tradition done away with, sad, really sad.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
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 running for office blame Mr. Bush for 9/11.

Because they tried that in the last election cycle and nobody bought it then either.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:27 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 25):
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 stuff misrepresents, etc.

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 illegal) to release the mini-series at that point in time on CBS (or cable).

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
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 the right. Civility has been left in the gutter by both sides, and what's really depressing is that neither side has guts to admit they are wrong to demonize Bush and Clinton the way they have and continue to do.

Look, it is wrong to say "I'd kill Bush/Clinton." It is another thing to call a sitting/past President a derisive nickname. I'd understand the outrage if guys like Falcon84 and Jaysit (who was in ROTC and the military, BTW...) were calling people out whenever someone nicknamed Bush, but yeah, that hasn't exactly happened... ever. I respect UH60's opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. By the way, UH, is it disrespectful for me to give Albright, Aspin (Somalia), Rumsfeld, Berger, or any of the several generals under Clinton/Bush derisive nicknames?

The bottom line is that it's acceptable to criticize Bush and Clinton for missing the boat. However, to attempt to squelch the criticism brings up true questions about Clinton's true character (or lack thereof) and his administration.
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:35 pm

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 42):
By the way, UH, is it disrespectful for me to give Albright, Aspin (Somalia), Rumsfeld, Berger, or any of the several generals under Clinton/Bush derisive nicknames?

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 out of all of the offices, the presidency should be one that should be elevated to a certain level of respect and dignity. Granted the man in the office may fall short of our expectations... the Office of the Presidency should always be referred to with honor.

President Clinton failed to live his personal life with dignity and honor - and he even dishonored the office by what he did in the Oval - but it does not mean his title is any less valid. He IS a US President. And I will continue to respect the title and the office.

Just a pet peeve.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:38 pm

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 2):

Truthfully, I could care less.

 redflag 


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 Slick Willy was the ONLY President to even TRY to directly attack OBL prior to 9/11.
From what I know; the movie defies some of the facts and if that's true deserves to be taken to task for it. Anything that is not fact or not proveable should be presented as such.
This space intentionally left blank
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
President Clinton failed to live his personal life with dignity and honor - and he even dishonored the office by what he did in the Oval - but it does not mean his title is any less valid.

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 is certainly a person's right to call a President past or sitting whatever they choose. Should I have to call President George Walker Bush just that? Am I allowed to shorten it to Bush, King George, W, or George as people do often without being disrespectful? Let's remember that George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, and the men that came before them are civilians, not military officers, just as I am (although disrespectful names towards American military officers is rife here... and I've yet to hear you speak up).
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:07 pm

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 36):
Sandy STOLE classified documents and stuffed it in his socks. Only a act of extreme kindness (for some unknown reason) by the Bush justice department saved his sorry ass.

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 every aspect of your life, from primo parking at DCA to getting a slap on the wrist when caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives. Any one of us trying to take the same documents like Berger did - we'd be doing the perp walk. These people TRULY believe the rules don't apply to them, and the sad thing is, we the people don't do something about it.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 42):
The bottom line is that it's acceptable to criticize Bush and Clinton for missing the boat. However, to attempt to squelch the criticism brings up true questions about Clinton's true character (or lack thereof) and his administration.

And I'll bet that not a single one of the Anet posters who are complaining about this movie has seen it, which leads me to wonder just how they can get so enraged about the factual inaccuracies.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
I think that out of all of the offices, the presidency should be one that should be elevated to a certain level of respect and dignity. Granted the man in the office may fall short of our expectations... the Office of the Presidency should always be referred to with honor.

Well said.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
President Clinton failed to live his personal life with dignity and honor - and he even dishonored the office by what he did in the Oval - but it does not mean his title is any less valid. He IS a US President. And I will continue to respect the title and the office.

This is the kind of attitude that I find disappearing - you might not like Clinton or Bush personally, but you retain respect for the title and office. Even when the object of your personal dislike occupies it. When I visit reliably left wing blogs like the Daily Kos, I am struck by the vitriol I see - no different from what I saw on right wing blogs during the Clinton administration.

As I said before, the lack of civility in public life is simply pathetic.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:55 pm

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.

Not like Shrubya who just lies and misleads.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
VSlover
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:36 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:00 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):

And I'll bet that not a single one of the Anet posters who are complaining about this movie has seen it, which leads me to wonder just how they can get so enraged about the factual inaccuracies.

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.

there is fact and there is the total opposite of. this movie claimed to be based on the 9/11 commission report which is the most extensive review and report on the matter. yet some fact from said report are taken and altered 180 degrees. ie no longer fact.

i just do not understand what there is not to grasp about this situation. you cannot make a movie, claiming to be based on the most comprehensive review of the event and select areas you want to completely re-write so as to make it more DRAMATIC.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting VSLover (Reply 48):
i just do not understand what there is not to grasp about this situation. you cannot make a movie, claiming to be based on the most comprehensive review of the event and select areas you want to completely re-write so as to make it more DRAMATIC.

I agree. But until you've actually SEEN the movie, how can you objectively conclude that any of it is inaccurate?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
VSlover
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:36 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 49):
I agree. But until you've actually SEEN the movie, how can you objectively conclude that any of it is inaccurate?



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 49):
I agree. But until you've actually SEEN the movie, how can you objectively conclude that any of it is inaccurate?

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 the fact that ABC have changed from saying "based on the 9/11 commision report" to "partly based on the 9/11 report"

that right there is an admission by the network that it isnt based entirely on fact as once claimed.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:47 am

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 unwavering confidence in F911 by Moore, and in that telepic about President Reagan which was done in the same vein. They don't like it when they feel that the same is being done to their side.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
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.

How do you know? Are you certain that permission to dx the bastard was not requested and denied, perhaps not in a "breathless call to the white house" or even a re-routed call from somewhere, but there are plenty of people who say that a similar event happened. How do you know for sure it did not?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):
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.

I fully agree with Westy on this one.

Yeah, I've said it often enough. President Clinton, when one is referring to him as President, should not be subjected to name calling for multiple reasons. Number one it takes away from rational arguments and turns the conversation into a polarized shouting match. Number two it's diminishing to the office of President.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 9):
It's so pathetic how some Clinton-bashers blame everything and its mother on his administration.

Well, to be fair I do blame the Clinton administration, and President Clinton for the policies that led to the recession he left when his term was winding down, and I do blame him for not acting to arrest Bin-Laden when he had the definite opportunity, and knew Bin-Laden was a very bad actor on the terrorist stage. I also blame him for allowing the Rwandan/Burundi genocides to occur, and for turning tail and running when we won a street battle in Somalia that came about because he ordered the military to assume a greater role and denied them the tools they requested to accomplish the job (outright denied them the Spectres and armor that were not only available but on the ramp waiting to deploy).

So.....what's pathetic about me blaming him for that?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 51):
Well, to be fair I do blame the Clinton administration, and President Clinton for the policies that led to the recession he left when his term was winding down,

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 entire time he's been President.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 51):
and I do blame him for not acting to arrest Bin-Laden when he had the definite opportunity

This is a historical revisionist myth propagated by the very Republicans who complained at the time that Clinton was going after OBL too aggressively!



Quoting DL021 (Reply 51):
also blame him for allowing the Rwandan/Burundi genocides to occur,and for turning tail and running when we won a street battle in Somalia that came about because he ordered the military to assume a greater role and denied them the tools they requested to accomplish the job (outright denied them the Spectres and armor that were not only available but on the ramp waiting to deploy).

"allowing"? It's a bit much to blame Clinton for this. The same kind of blame could easily be laid on W for ignoring Darfur, if you want to play that game.Do you have proof of your claims about Somalia that's not from a biased source?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 51):
So.....what's pathetic about me blaming him for that?

I just think the evidence doesn't support the claims you're making.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:02 am

Quoting Dvk (Reply 52):
Yes, the economy was cooling, but it was not a recession.

As a question, who was president when the NASDAQ peaked and the dot.com bubble burst?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:17 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 53):
As a question, who was president when the NASDAQ peaked and the dot.com bubble burst?

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 peaked in March 2000.

Where this often-used attempt to point fingers breaks down is that the NASDAQ has never recovered to its record-high levels, showing that it was simply overvalued. If it was due to inherently faulty economic fundamentals under the Clinton administration, the NASDAQ would have resumed its climb under Bush, but it hasn't.

A far better indicator to use would be the Dow 30, that's a better indicator of the health of output rather than speculation, even though it's not free from the latter. A long-term historical view is available here:

http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
International Homo of Mystery
 
Jalto27R
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:49 am

RE: Clinton Administration Can't Handle Truth.

Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 9):

It's so pathetic how some Clinton-bashers blame everything and its mother on his administration.

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 blame the other party.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 9):
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.

Exactly. Good point.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 13):
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".

ABC sure doesn't like the spotlight, but they were awfully quick to give in and edit.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 14):
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."

You have a good point here, it wouldn't be fair to equate the two movies.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 15):

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.

Yes, exactly.

Mike

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seahawk and 8 guests