How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Pathway to 9/11   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Pathway to 9/11

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 09-07-2006 06:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Every once in a while an event happens that makes me laugh out loud. This is one of those events. ABC is due to air a mini-series entitled "The Path to 9/11" which has the Democrats and Bill Clinton going bonkers. The film was a compilation of the 9/11 Report, along with information received from other reports and books on the subject. It is done by ABC, not Fox or any wacky right-wing group. Clinton is DEMANDING the movie not be shown or, at worst, edited to remove scenes unfavorable to him or his regime.

"This film is going to be enormously helpful to those of us who have been working so hard to get the Commissions recommendations implemented," said Governor Thomas H. Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and senior consultant on the miniseries. "More people will see this film than probably anything else on the subject. Telling the whole story of 9/11 will help people better understand the issues involved and what we need to do nationally and locally to prevent another tragedy."

"When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right," said Steve McPherson, president of ABC Entertainment. "Having Governor Kean, who chaired the 9/11 Commission, as a key advisor on this movie has not only been an honor, it's also been crucial to the project."

Mr. McPherson continued: "ABC is incredibly proud to bring this story to our viewers. By dramatizing the events that ultimately led to the 9/11 attack, the miniseries presents a compelling story of what happened then and what experts say needs to happen now."  


...and this, from ABC News...

AbC News
By JOHN COCHRAN

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2006 — During the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton's campaign prided itself on its quick and sharp responses to attacks from the Republican side.

Now, 14 years later, little has changed, except this time the Clintonistas have aimed their fire not at Republicans but at ABC, for its two-part miniseries "The Path to 9/11," which is scheduled for broadcast Sunday and Monday evenings.

ABC calls the film "a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a number of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression."

The five-hour film, with a large cast that includes Patricia Heaton and Harvey Keitel, will air with no commercial interruptions. But some people who have screened the film in part, or have heard reports from those screenings, have already issued their reviews.

Some former Clinton administration officials have demanded that ABC correct or simply dump the film because of "misleading scenes." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and three other Clinton-era officials expressed their concern in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of ABC

In a statement, ABC said the film is still being edited, leaving open the possibility that some scenes in the film could be altered in response to the criticism.


What does Democrats.com have to say about it?

ABC Should not air "The Path to 9/11." The TV MiniSeries was produced by a right-wing nut who blames the Clinton administration for 9/11, when clearly the Bush administration is to blame. ABC should be ashamed of itself for pandering to the right wing nuts.

What a surprise. Bill Clinton himself is livid over the fact that the facts may lead viewers to believe he was soft on terrorism (which he was) and did little following the terrorist attacks of the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the first WTC bombing attempt, etc (which is also true). It also portrays the documented facts that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on several occassions and refused each time.

Newsmax.com

In a 2002 speech to a Long Island business group, Bill Clinton detailed a 1996 offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition. The speech was recorded by NewsMax.com as well as by the Long Island association that hosted the event.

In 2004 the former president admitted on CNN that he once publicly confessed to turning down an offer to have bin Laden arrested prior to the 9/11 attacks. But in true Clintonesque fashion, he unabashedly asserted that his admission was "not accurate."

"What I said there was wrong, what I said was in error," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.


hehehe...that almost ranks up there with "That all depends on what "is" is."

Some former Clinton administration officials have demanded that ABC correct or simply dump the film because of "misleading scenes." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and three other Clinton-era officials expressed their concern in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of ABC

Yes., Madeline Albright is very upset. She is portrayed as not accepting Bin Laden as a gift from the Sudanese. Actually several years ago, on television, she declared she was never offered Bin Laden and then, when faced with the governmetn official who had made the offer, backed down and said, "Well, I turned the offer down because we had no place to hold him." Imagine that.

Sandy "How many top-secret documents can I stuff in my underwear and socks?" Berger is equally incensed over how he is portrayed.

How does the National Review online view it?

National review Online
Apparently, the documentary recounts the bureaucratic bungling and lack of action against al Qaeda that was pervasive prior to the September 11 atrocities.  It is by no means, I understand, pro-Bush.  It is, instead, an effort to present history accurately.  This evidently has many former Clinton officials and apologists in their default kill-the-messenger mode.  Great pressure is being brought to bear on ABC and Disney to reopen the editorial process at this late stage (the documentary is supposed to air on September 10-11) so that the years 1993-2001 may remain forever airbrushed.


So will it be aired as is or will ABC cave in the the Clintonesque pressure from the left? We will have to stay tuned to find out. This is from ABC..

The ABC Web site refers to the production as "an epic miniseries event," and the plan is to air the program with limited commercial interruptions. Because the program specifically deals with the Clinton administration's failure to act when bin Laden was offered, a left-wing outcry has erupted on the Internet along with attempts to vilify the miniseries before it is even shown. David Brock's Web site carries an article with a headline that reads "Right wing uses ABC docudrama to push debunked claim blaming Clinton administration for 9-11." Pressure from the Left and from Clinton allies may account for an unusual posting by director David L. Cunningham titled "Clarification," which was placed on the "Path" Web site.

It stated that the series "is not a documentary," nor is it "a right wing agenda movie." "The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush," it also read.


The posting has since been removed from the ABC Web site.


I find all of  this fairly humorous but it's not what makes me laugh out loud. The laughable part is Fahrenheit 911 and Michael Moore. LOLOL!   Where in the world was all of the complaining, whining, grandstanding and threats over that documentary? The Democrats did not seem to have any problem with that. They could care less about the portrayals, the inconsistencies, and misrepresentations presented there (which Michael Moore freely admitted, followed by the words "So sue me".) Instead we had Jimmy Carter hugging Moore at the DNC and sitting next to him. That type of foul play and misrepresentation was ok but let anything like "The Path to 9/11" pop up with a negative portrayal of the Left's favorite son and they go bonkers and circle the wagons, firing threats and warnings. Does one need any other example of how shallow these people really are? The Bush administration did not address Fahrenheit  911 at all. Bush never mentioned it, to my knowledge. That shows a little class. The Left has shown only their lack of it and in such an obvious way it cannot be disguised. I love it.

Clinton is worried about his legacy. His actual legacy is obvious to many....it's 9/11.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 09-07-2006 07:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Partisanship aside, Mike, the gist of your post, then, is that America is responsible for 9/11?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 09-07-2006 07:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, I doubt that you and I could ever speak partisanship aside

Other than that, I don't understand your gist but I'd appreciate your input on the other 93 sentences and not only the last one.

Unfortunately I'm out the door for a poetry convention tonight and won't be able to respond but I'll be checking in tomorrow. Have a good one....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 09-07-2006 07:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I WILL take the time to say, however, that

(1) Do I think that 9/11 could have been prevented if Clinton had declared a war on terror after the first WTC bombing attempt and gone after shutting down Al-Qada?...yes.

(2) Do I think that if Clinton had taken Bin Laden into custody when offered that 9/11 would not have happened?....yes

(3) Do I think that Clinton's weak responses to terrorists attacks allowed 9/11 to happen?....yes. Bin Laden said so in one of his speeches that he was so encouraged by the U.S. lack of response to the attack on the USS Cole that he was encouraged to go ahead with his plans for 9/11.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


4 posted 09-07-2006 07:47 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ I found this to be very interesting, indeed. I am curious as to how this all plays out.

~ Thanks for sharing, Mike.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


5 posted 09-07-2006 07:55 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

My opinion is, I'm not going to make a huge deal of this semi-fictitious dramatization by sending letters or campaigning in keeping the film from being aired, as some did likewise in complaining and trying to keep Michael Moore from releasing his semi-fictitious documentary "Fahrenheit 911", which only made the hype greater and translate into box office success.

I think this ABC controversy is just like that, except coming from the other end of the spectrum. I think ABC has every right to air what they want to and shouldn't be censored or prevented from doing so; I certainly am not going to watch the film as from what I've heard it exaggerates the 9/11 Commission Report and, more than anything, rather than reiterate the unanimous spirit of unity that blossomed following the tragic day our nation was attacked almost five years ago, is instead a coordinated, intentional, pre-election effort to smear and blame political opposition for everything related to this national tragedy, repeating the sort of strategy Sinclair Broadcasting pulled during the 2004 election season when they aired "Stolen Honor", which basically accused John Kerry of prolonging the violence in Vietnam because of his anti-war activism.

I'm also aware that "The Path To 9/11" is written by a well-documented libertarian activist by the name of Cyrus Nowrasteh. Especially given that last year he was a guest speaker on a pane titled "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.", it's of no surprise to me that some of his beliefs may be influenced in the film in some fashion, in assessing there's more than Tinseltown's side of the story.

ABC can air what they'd like to, but I do think it's unfortunate that again some choose to exploit our national tragedy.......yet again........and attempt to re-write history, rather than adhere to the Communications Act of 1934's understanding that in serving the public airwaves that they should serve the public interest, thus it is important to promote an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

If anything, we should take these words that the Families of September 11 have mentioned to heart, if we are ever to have a genuine understanding and discussion of 9/11:

*

Families Of September 11

As we mark five years since 9/11, we are inundated with the media's portrayal of that tragic day.  Television miniseries, Hollywood films, comic books and countless "documentaries" are dramatizing and sometimes distorting the events leading up to and happening on 9/11.

Families of September 11 believes the best way to honor those who were lost is to make sure that what happened to them never happens again.  As such, we must understand exactly what took place, and not allow "entertainers" to promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.  Any depiction of 9/11 that is not accurate and factual propagates myths, myths that may cause us future harm.

In order to make our country safer and more secure, we owe it to those who were lost to acknowledge that which took place, so that we can ensure it never happens again."


*

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


6 posted 09-07-2006 07:58 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"My opinion is, I'm not going to make a huge deal of this semi-fictitious dramatization by sending letters or campaigning in keeping the film from being aired,"

Noah, how do you know it is "semi-fictitious?"

"... as some did likewise in complaining and trying to keep Michael Moore from releasing his semi-fictitious documentary "Fahrenheit 911", which only made the hype greater and translate into box office success."

~ I thought you supported Moore's documentary, including the flat-out lying Bowling for Columbine?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


7 posted 09-07-2006 08:03 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I support Michael Moore's right to make and release these films, and I agree with some of his points, but there's other moments in his films I believe he exagerrates and resorts to the same sort of propaganda tactics that Fox News pundits on the other end often do.

For instance, he admitted to splicing the footage of the NRA president's speech. I may agree with some of his main thesis ideas regarding gun violence and the way they are marketed and influence our youth, but I believe it is wrong for any documentary filmer like him to put words into peoples mouths and take what they say out of context, as they deserve any charges of credibility loss in those events.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


8 posted 09-07-2006 08:10 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"I support Michael Moore's right to make and release these films, and I agree with some of his points,"

~ Well, with all due respect, I don't support Moore's right to make and release these films while labeling them as documentaries, when they are not. And it is shameful of the Academy and others to reward him for his MOCKumenatary work.

~ But you didn't answer my first question, how do you know the upcoming film on ABC is "semi-fictional?"

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


9 posted 09-07-2006 08:37 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I haven't read the script to this dramatized television event -- but by ABC's own account it is dramatized with re-creations.  That's fictionalizing it.  Not to be confused with the work of a PROPAGANDIST like Michael Moore who takes actual footage and edits it in a way to tell the story he wants to tell.

That said -- I've read the 9/11 Report cover to cover and posted plenty of it here.  Any shortcomings that are portrayed of the Clinton Administration's mishandling of the terror threat should be couched by the Bush Admin's total disregard during it's first nine months.

But, something strikes me a bit odd here about the back and forth.

Prior to 9/11 when the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was in control of Iraq -- while OBL was already a fugitive we are to believe there were circumstances under which all we had to to was hold out our American hand and he would just walk into it to be brought to the U.S. for prosectuion.. but, now that we have an occupational force in Iraq and have captured Saddam Hussein, thrown the Taliban out of Afghanistan and still maintain coalition forces there -- he is more elusive and beyond our reach?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


10 posted 09-07-2006 09:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, I doubt that you and I could ever speak partisanship aside

I'm surprised you would include me in that observation, Mike, after more than seven years of reading what I've had to say. Haven't you realized I dislike Clinton almost as much as I dislike Bush, for much the same reasons, and if I was a "joiner" I'd be much more inclined to be a Republican than a Democrat?

quote:
Other than that, I don't understand your gist but I'd appreciate your input on the other 93 sentences and not only the last one.

My comment wasn't directed at just one sentence, Mike, but at the entire post. You can't very well blame the duly elected President of the United States for a terrorist attack without casting everyone else into the same shadow. Bush would have been crucified, after 9/11, if he hadn't responded strongly. He did exactly what the country wanted him to do.

But so did Clinton.

He didn't invade any Middle East countries because America really didn't want to go to war. Attacking Afghanistan prior to 9/11 would have been nearly impossible to sell to the public. There might well have been provocation, at least in hindsight, but it probably wasn't sufficient provocation to justify war, not to Congress and not to us. If Clinton is responsible for 9/11, Mike, then everyone in this country who didn't actively pursue an armed conflict is equally responsible

Personally, I think Clinton has to take responsibility for not avoiding 9/11 (along with every President for most of fifty years), but that's a far cry from laying the blame for a terrorist attack at his feet. I don't mean to be harsh, Mike, but that's tantamount to telling a rape victim she didn't do enough to stop her attacker. Five decades of American foreign policy didn't give the terrorists cause, and eight years of Clinton, followed by nine months of an equally do-nothing Bush administration, didn't give them leave.

The ONLY people responsible for 9/11 are the people who perpetrated the horrific act.

quote:
(1) Do I think that 9/11 could have been prevented if Clinton had declared a war on terror after the first WTC bombing attempt and gone after shutting down Al-Qada?...yes.

So we should have no immediate fear of another large-scale terrorist attack, Mike? If a war on terror and shutting down Al-Qada would have prevented 9/11, then they should also be sufficient to prevent another such attack, right?

And if such an attack should occur, God forbid, it will be Bush's fault for not doing enough?


Have fun at the poetry convention, Mike!
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


11 posted 09-07-2006 09:19 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I believe it is "semi-fictitious" because the creators, as well as ABC and Disney, claim this dramatization to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and are also using that claim as part of the promotional campaign behind it.

The 9/11 Commission was a most credible, bi-partisan authority on the 9/11 attacks, who released a report that Americans of all backgrounds respect, and should the report be explained by means of entertainment or educational purposes, it needs to be done accurately and carefully, that's just how it should be.

Representatives of the 9/11 Commission themselves disagree that the film is solidly based on the 9/11 Commission Report. Richard Ben-Veniste said so yesterday, Thomas Kean has admitted some scenes are fictionalized, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has said it is 180 degrees from what happened, there's even report of a FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up."

I'm not going to stop ABC from running what they want, but I am concerned that this is more about policitized propaganda than really taking the values of this national disaster to heart.

I agree with what another 9/11 Commission member, Jamie Gorelick said, when she suggested "It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why ­so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer."

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


12 posted 09-08-2006 07:23 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Other prominent figures, including conservative commentators, have claimed the film indeed has fictitious conversations and that they should be corrected if the film is to be aired, especially if it is being promoted as being based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

Even Bill Bennett, who wrote "The Children’s Book of Virtues and The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals" believes there are gross inaccuracies that should be corrected, as he said this morning on CNN's American Morning.

*

BENNETT: Well, maybe having been a cabinet member you know you have some heightened concern about being quoted accurately and correctly. Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

Conservatives have to be consistent Soledad, when the Reagan’s that show about the Reagan’s, CBS show came out, had all sorts of distortions and misstatements. Conservatives went crazy and had it relegated somewhere, I don’t know, it never appeared on CBS. And so I think they should be consistent. And when ABC comes out and has conversations taking place among cabinet members on recent history, on matters that are still before us, I think they should correct those inaccuracies.


*

Also, Chris Wallace, who hosts "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace", who has slandered political opposition for attacking "the president in such a vile manner while hundreds of thousands of our troops are serving overseas", believes that the intent of this airing is not to facillitate discussion and unity of 9/11 but to attack, who said this on today's edition of "Fox & Friends":

*

WALLACE: ...but when you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.—it better be what she said or I think she has a heck of a case..."

*

Some American historians are also calling for "The Path To 9/11" to either be corrected, or pulled. A transcript of a letter compiled by a group of historians is included below:

*

Dear Robert Iger:

We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC's scheduled broadcast of "The Path to 9/11." These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.

The claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show's broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.

Sincerely,
Arthur Schlesinger
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,
Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;
Ted Widmer, Washington College;
Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;
David Blight, Yale University;
Eric Alterman, City University of New York;
Beverly Gage, Yale University.


*

No matter how much some try to attempt to re-write the history and memory of September 11th, 98% of Americans polled have said they can still remember where they were and how they first heard about the tragedy, with half of Americans openly admitting they think about 9/11 multiple times every week, and when our nation was arguably seemingly 50/50 prior to the attacks, a genuine spirit of national unity blossomed in response to this tragedy which claimed several thousand innocent lives and broke tens of millions more American hearts nationwide. Nations worldwide setted aside their differences and sympathized with us in solidarity, with hundreds of thousands worldwide marching in support, candlelight vigils lighting up the world everywhere from Canada to the United Kingdom to Australia to South Africa, even newspapers worldwide that traditionally had negative views about our nation printed headlines that said encouraging things like "We Are All Americans". And any archived poll you look at immediately following that tragic day shows that a unanimous majority of Americans, regardless of political affliation, gender, demographic or background, believed that we must go after those directly responsible for the attacks on our nation.

Sadly, there are some that appear they can't resist exploiting this national fellow-feeling to, rather than rejuvenate that feeling of unity, blatantly attack political and national opposition for the mere hope of producing political gain before an election season.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 09-08-2006 08:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course it is fictionalizing it, LR, but that doesn't mean it runs far from the truth. Two recent movies, Flight 93 and WTC, were also fictionalized, since all actual participants in the events died. What a filmmaker does is study the reports, the evidence, the conclusions and draw as logical inferences as possible and portrays them.

Not to be confused with the work of a PROPAGANDIST like Michael Moore who takes actual footage and edits it in a way to tell the story he wants to tell.

Oh, really? And when a propogandist slices up the footage, re-engineers it to give a false presentation, that makes it more factual and acceptable? Try to splice evidence in a jury case and see what happens...it's out.

Prior to 9/11 when the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was in control of Iraq -- while OBL was already a fugitive we are to believe there were circumstances under which all we had to to was hold out our American hand and he would just walk into it to be brought to the U.S. for prosectuion.. but, now that we have an occupational force in Iraq and have captured Saddam Hussein, thrown the Taliban out of Afghanistan and still maintain coalition forces there -- he is more elusive and beyond our reach?

I have no idea why that strikes you as being odd, LR. No one was really looking for him before....now they are. It's only logical that he be more elusive now.


Representatives of the 9/11 Commission themselves disagree that the film is solidly based on the 9/11 Commission Report. Richard Ben-Veniste said so yesterday, Thomas Kean has admitted some scenes are fictionalized, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has said it is 180 degrees from what happened, there's even report of a FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up."

Well, Noah, here's what ABC has to say about that...

Clinton colleagues Richard Ben-Veniste and John Podesta reportedly expressed their extreme displeasure about the way the docudrama portrays the Clinton administration. Their frustration likely stems from the extensive efforts that were taken to keep the information from being made public. Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and creator of the notorious wall that was erected between the FBI and CIA, served as a 9/11 Commission panel member. Because of potential conflicts of interest, the propriety of Gorelick's membership on the panel was questionable. Ben-Veniste's role as a longtime partisan Democrat attorney made him another highly questionable commission member.


Haven't you realized I dislike Clinton almost as much as I dislike Bush, for much the same reasons,

Actually, Ron, I've never considered you a staunch supporter of Clinton but I would never even have considered that you would dislike him as much as Bush, based on your many Bush criticisms, your apparent disdain for his character and your fairly complete lack of any  involving Clinton but I'll take you at your word on that.

I basically lay the blame at his feet because of what I have already stated. It is documented that it was known that Al-Qada wsa responsible for the USS Cole. It is documented that they were also behind the first WTC bombing. It is also documented that Clinton was offered Bin Laden to take into custody and he declined the offer. Yes, I certainly agree that the responsibility for 9/11 lies with Bin Laden and Al-Qada.....but Bin Laden would not have been free to orchestrate the attack had Clinton taken him out of circulation. that's tantamount to telling a rape victim she didn't do enough to stop her attacker. Well, if the rape victim held a gun against the attacker and didn't try to use it, then I would have to say she DIDN'T do enough. Does that justify the rape or make her responsible? No, but it makes it an act that could have been prevented.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 09-08-2006 09:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sadly, there are some that appear they can't resist exploiting this national fellow-feeling to, rather than rejuvenate that feeling of unity, blatantly attack political and national opposition for the mere hope of producing political gain before an election season.

I'm not going to stop ABC from running what they want, but I am concerned that this is more about policitized propaganda than really taking the values of this national disaster to heart.

from what I've heard it exaggerates the 9/11 Commission Report and, more than anything, rather than reiterate the unanimous spirit of unity that blossomed following the tragic day our nation was attacked almost five years ago, is instead a coordinated, intentional, pre-election effort to smear and blame political opposition for everything related to this national tragedy, repeating the sort of strategy Sinclair Broadcasting pulled during the 2004 election season when they aired "Stolen Honor", which basically accused John Kerry of prolonging the violence in Vietnam because of his anti-war activism.


Noah, you are making a lot of assumptions there and pointing accusatory fingers before the fact....certainly didn't see you doing that over Fahrenheit 911. You reprint a letter from eight teachers as if that has some great signifigance....as if a large majority of college professors are not liberal by nature. What is that suppose to prove? You are accusing the producers of the film of things you have no idea if your words are valid or not. You consider that fair and unbiased? You have already passed judgement on nothing more than the statements of liberals and Democrats. Your mind is made up.

On Friday, David Cunningham, director of the controversial new ABC miniseries, "The Path the 9/11," gave a statement to The Crimson White, answering many critics of the show.

One of the major points Cunningham makes is that these outspoken critics, which include former National Security Adviser Samuel Burger and aide to former President Bill Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, attended a screening two weeks ago that featured only the first half of the film, which focuses on the years in which Clinton was president.
Another outspoken critic of the film is former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has not even seen the film.
"A lot of these critics haven t seen the whole thing or, in some cases, any of it," Cunningham said.
"We have these CNN pundits who haven't seen it who are taking scenes out of context as examples [of factual inaccuracies in the film]."
Cunningham also pointed out that the critics, many of whom are Democrats, are just telling their side of the story.
"We have out CIA consultants and Clinton has his. It's kind of a 'he said, she said' situation right now," Cunningham said.
In the case of people like Albright who haven't seen the film, Cunningham said that "they are hearing things that people say about it, and then using that to come up with their own conclusions about the show."


Sounds like he is describing you, Noah.

Many people who have read the script have agreed that it is NOT pro-Bush, that it portrays Bush as a small dictator and is as hard on him as it is on Clinton. SO what about that? What you are seeing is an all-out assault on ABC by liberals and Clintonistas, nothing more.

How about this charming letter from Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Byron Dorgan to Disney?

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program (meaning that none of these folks has actually seen it!) indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day). Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage  of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

(Now the threats begin!) The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

In other words, they are saying "Listen, pal. You are in business because Congress issues you FCC licenses. Don't make us feel that your programming does not serve the public interest or those licenses could go bye-bye." Blatant threats....that's what the democrats have reduced themselves to. What a despicable group of people......

....and slick Willie may get away with it once again. Here's the latest...
.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Under pressure from former President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, ABC scrambled on Friday to make 11th-hour changes to a miniseries suggesting he was inattentive to the Islamic militant threat that led to the September 11 attacks.

Officials at the Walt Disney Co.-owned network said they were still tinkering with the five-hour production, titled "The Path to 9/11".

ABC declined to say whether any of the last-minute changes were being made to address complaints lodged by Clinton, his former aides and congressional Democrats that the film contained numerous inaccuracies and distortions.

The Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety, citing sources close to the project, reported the network was considering cancelling the miniseries altogether.



Stay tuned......
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


15 posted 09-09-2006 12:23 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

You make some interesting points that are worth discussing, Balladeer.

I have a few more points I intend to bring up regarding the politics behind this project, which I will do Sunday, but right now I'm prepared to go off on an escapade of my own, where tomorrow I'll be heading off on a long 8.4 mile hike in Silverton Falls National Park.

How was that poetry convention by the way, dearest friend, hope you had a great time! I'm going to leave for now, as I am also still emotionally getting over the loss of my cousin Jeremy in Iraq Wednesday and am still organizing his memorial poem in my head.

Anyway, have a wonderful evening!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 09-09-2006 01:36 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Show the film!

Show the film as it was intended!

Let freedom ring and truth will take of itself.

This goes just as well for Moore, the Reagan film, or Hitchens' documentary, "The Missionary Position".

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 09-09-2006 01:48 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Actually, Ron, I've never considered you a staunch supporter of Clinton but I would never even have considered that you would dislike him as much as Bush, based on your many Bush criticisms, your apparent disdain for his character and your fairly complete lack of any  involving Clinton

You're right, Mike, I've said little enough about Clinton. You won't likely see me saying much about Bush a few years from now, either. What would be the point? I vote for men, not political parties, so I have no need to paint anyone with a wide brush.

quote:
Many people who have read the script have agreed that it is NOT pro-Bush, that it portrays Bush as a small dictator ...

So you admit, Mike, that it's not entirely accurate? I mean, after all, we all know Bush isn't particularly small.

You seem to have skipped over the final question in my last post, Mike, so I'll rephrase it and try again.

Bush was in office for nine months prior to 9/11 and, obviously and regretfully, didn't stop it from happening. Had the attack been delayed for another nine months, do you feel Bush would have been able to avoid terrorist attacks entirely? If not an additional nine months, how long did he need? What would the Administration have done differently in the added time that it didn't do in its first nine months?

Perhaps most importantly, with Bush now in office for nearly six years, are we safe yet?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


18 posted 09-09-2006 05:21 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'll answer the last question.

No.  Obviously not.  Politicians can point to the fact (thankfully) there have been no Al Quada attacks inside America since 9/11 and say they are doing a good job.

I'm sure there are some things that have foiled a few sub-plots  -- but Al Quada major -- the big OBL set his own standard to a level that makes it a very very high hurdle to launch an attack -- because he said each one would be bigger than the last -- so they have to pull off one even bigger than 9/11 next time or lose face.

What was the time interval between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11?  

I'm sure Mike doesn't want to give Clinton credit for all those years of peace and prosperity.

And Mike -- I didn't say whether or not what Micheal Moore does is ok.  I said it's propaganda.  Propagandists don't lie.  They just don't tell the whole truth and they only tell the parts that help them out.  I was pointing out that it is different from hiring an actor to portray someone having a conversation that never took place.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


19 posted 09-09-2006 05:54 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ron, don't you secretly long to be a partisan?  I mean really -- wouldn't it be nice to have someone tell you what to think?  You wouldn't have to do research and make decisions.  

quote:

I have no idea why that strikes you as being odd, LR. No one was really looking for him before....now they are. It's only logical that he be more elusive now.



quote:

However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[16]
____________

Sudanese officials, whose government was under international sanctions, offered to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990s. However, Saudi Arabia refused because of the political difficulties of accepting such a controversial figure into their custody. Consequently, in May 1996, under increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave and he returned to Afghanistan.

_______________

As a result of international pressure, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave the country in 1996. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan," but would not accept offers to extradite him to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden chartered a plane and moved to Afghanistan that year.[5][6]

In 2002, private businessman Mansoor Ijaz and one-time U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney claimed that Ijaz had in 1996 negotiated "through unofficial channels" a Sudanese offer to extradite bin Laden to the U.S., but that the offer had been denied.[7] Former Sudanese officials have made similar claims. Clinton administration officials testified that they had never received such an offer, and the 9/11 Commission stated that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."[8] President Bill Clinton later said that "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."[9]
______________

In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden




How many conservative talk show rousers complained about Clinton lobbing 1.5 million dollar missiles at 5 dollar tents?  Oh.. yeah -- all of them.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 09-09-2006 08:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Transcript from Newsmax of Clinton's speech to the LIA that started a fracas when Sean Hannity distorted the statement accusing Clinton of refusing an offer from Sudan to the US to take Osama Bin Laden

quote:

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.


We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml




The 9/11 Commission found no factual evidence of the Sudanese (a government listed by the US State Department as an official sponsor of terrorism) claim.

quote:


These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of
controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to
the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.

We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim. Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him.

U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The
evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but
would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country
at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese
were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S.
custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the
interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a
hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment.

Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was
responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin
Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf



Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


21 posted 09-09-2006 09:30 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Well, I'm back earlier than expected. Had a delightful early day at Silver Falls State Park in Silverton, Oregon, then stopped for lunch with my father and sister in the small town.

Later I'll respond to some other points, but first, as promised, I have some other points I'd like to address:

*

1) Conservative activist David Horowitz is really the real brains behind this project, as he has long partnered with this film's director, David Cunningham, who is in fact the son of the founder of a right-wing evangelical group known as Youth With A Mission", who has his own group called The Film Institute that is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution to and through the Film and Television industry."

Also, as previously mentioned, the film's writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is also a well-documented libertarian conservative activist who also participated last year on a Liberty Film Festival panel titled "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift." and has recently partnered with David Horowitz on future collaborative projects.

Fox News: July 28, 2005

As far back as early last summer, Cunningham and The Film Institute publicly declared they were making their first film, which was originally titled "Untitled History Project". One month later, in July, it was announced ABC was helping in the filming of the project, and it became titled "Untitled Commission Report". Following tha, Cyrus Nowrasteh was hired to write the script for the project.

FrontPageMag (David Horowitz's E-Zine) August 16, 2006

Finally, after keeping the project completely secret until recently, Horowitz and Nowrasteh began promoting the project at the last minute now, and Nowrasteh even admiited on August 16th on Horowitz's web-zine: "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. There simply was no response. Nothing."

*

*

European "The Path To 9/11" Promotional Trailer

Next, here's the official European trailer for "The Path To 9/11".

Watch it very closely, and you'll notice at the 8-second mark the words "Official True Story", contradicting ABC's latest claim that this isn't a documentary, it's a dramatization, and continuing to suggest that the film is "based solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report". You can watch the video clip from Fox News that confirms that ABC producers mentioned to them that at the link below and see for yourself.

Fox News: September 6, 2006 Segment Clip

Moreover, this trailer revolves around one of the fictionalized scenes in the film, when a CIA agent locates bin Laden and Sandy Berger doesn't authorize action against him. That is a lie and contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report, where even Thomas Kean admitted himself that though the Clinton White House did backtrack on several opportunities to kill Al Qaeda's founder because intelligence was sketchy, the CIA was never that close to him and Berger never hanged up on field agents.

*

The film's star Harvey Keitel believes the film has factual errors, five members of the 9/11 Commission said the film is flawed, prominent American historians believe likewise, and it was even originally intended to be pushed to a hundred-thousand schools until Scholastic bowed out in promoting the press kits earlier this week.

Is it any wonder that ABC and Disney have both fallen victim to an embarrassingly huge PR scandal? I feel for Walt Disney very much in that I'm sure he would be saddened by the state his lasting, genuine dream and inspiration for delighting children and the American family has become entrenched in; the ever-familiar cronyist politics in recent decades. Disney truly is a great American name built on a great, youthful, innocent imagination and impressionable vision, and I'm saddened that though the characters and theme parks are as lovely as always, the management and character just isn't the same.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 09-09-2006 10:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm sure Mike doesn't want to give Clinton credit for all those years of peace and prosperity.

All those years, LR? let's see, those years that included the WTC bombing in '93, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in '96, the US Embassy bombings  in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in '98, and the attack on the USS Cole in Octobere of 2000? Or maybe those years of peace and prosperity where On 14 May 1998, The London Al-Quds al-'Arabi published an article to the effect that clerics in Afghanistan had issued a fatwa stipulating the necessity to move U.S. forces out of the Gulf region. Addressing Muslims the world-over, the Afghan ulema said: “The enemies of Islam are not limited to a certain group or party; all atheists are enemies of Islam, and they take one another as friends.” The Afghan ulema declared “jihad -- based on the rules of the Shari'ah -- against the United States and its followers?

....those years where In February 1998, the bin Ladin network's World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders declared its intention to attack Americans and our allies, including civilians, anywhere in the world?

The only "peace and prosperity" was the front that Clinton was trying to keep selling to the American people, that with him as president, everything was nice and rosy.

You quoted Wikipedia, LR. Allow me to do the same...

Washington’s inattentiveness towards East Africa and its insensitivity to local and regional factors helped to create conditions favorable to al Qaeda. Attacks by terrorists were viewed by the United States as random acts of violence by unconnected, disorganized, and state-sponsored groups of extremists. As a result, al-Qaeda was able to operate virtually unhindered and undetected. By 1998, al Qaeda was a well-developed organization. Its operations extended to resource acquisition, surveillance, tactical planning, logistics, procurement and strategies for the precise and secure execution of an operation. Many conservatives feel that the comparatively restrained response of the Clinton Administration, at the time embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, which included the cruise missile strikes of Operation Infinite Reach and the arrest and prosecution of some of the perpetrators, was a factor in emboldening al Qaeda to undertake the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 09-09-2006 10:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bush was in office for nine months prior to 9/11 and, obviously and regretfully, didn't stop it from happening. Had the attack been delayed for another nine months, do you feel Bush would have been able to avoid terrorist attacks entirely? If not an additional nine months, how long did he need? What would the Administration have done differently in the added time that it didn't do in its first nine months?

Perhaps most importantly, with Bush now in office for nearly six years, are we safe yet?


Had  the attack been delayed for another 9 months would Bush have been able to avoid it?  Highly unlikely but that wasn't my point. My point was that if bin Laden had been removed from the picture 9/11 would not have happened at all.

I do not give the Bush administration a clean slate concerning the happening of 9/11. Even I can see several areas where incompetence played a large part, from the lack of tracking Al-Qaeda operatives in the US, the failure to key in on students in flying schools only being interested in take-offs...and a few glaring other issues I'll describe in another reply.

Are we safe yet? Ron, I don't think we will ever be safe again for as long as there are groups out there dedicated to our destruction. Do I think Bush has done a good job to protect us? Yes, I do. The US is an extremely easy target....any mall, police station, city hall, football stadium....how incredibly easy would it be to set off bombs or release toxic gasses?....and yet, nothing has happened. Bush has been doing something right, be it setting up tight security controls, monitoring suspected terroristic activities, or simply keeping the terrorist groups on the run.

No, we'll never be completely safe but I certainly think we are safer under Bush than we would have been under a Gore or Kerry.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 09-09-2006 11:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, Noah. The poetry convention was great. It's a once a year event of quite a large gathering of South Florida poets and it's always a very stimulating evening.

Yes, I can understand how difficult it is to get over the loss you endured and you continue to have my sympathy and understanding..I look forward to your memorial poem.

Enjoy your hike!
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Pathway to 9/11   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors