A must read book, scary stuff!!!
Posted on 09/06/2006 5:44:43 PM PDT by woofie
http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/2006/09/even_futher_cla.html#comments
I did not see this Blog mentioned anywhere, Check out the comments
From ABC : "The Path to 911"
Even Further Clarification It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.
The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.
The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.
Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.
-David Cunningham
September 02, 2006 | Permalink
Sounds right to me, but the libs just can't admit that their guy had ANYTHING to do with what happened on 9/11. It's like they're heads will combust if they just admit for one second that terrorism existed before Bush came along
I cannot blame President Bush who had barely taken office. Please, can't allow us to put any blame on Clinton unless Bush is equally wrong right? Are the terrorists to blame at all?
Posted by: mkd | September 02, 2006 at 02:14 PM
I guess that is why Clinton didn't retailate for the first WTC attack, Khobar Towers and the Cole bombing. LOL!
And the only attack for which he DID retailate came directly after a disasterous speech over Monicagate.
More left-wing denial. Go ahead, boycott your buds at ABC. Make them come over to a centrist or right-wing point of view to sell their wares.
Sorry, but that's what 90 percent of liberals do - castigate out of ignorance.
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
I'm gonna watch it. Most definitely.
I was planning on doing so even before I found out it wasn't kind to the Clinton Administration.
But upon hearing that Hollywood actually put out a product with a minimal amount of left-wing spin...well, that cinched it for me.
Clinton - 8 years, Bush - 8 months.
Clinton - had Bin Laden, Bush - got 300 dead for it.
Clinton - ignored 7 terrorist acts, Bush - took the war to their front door.
Yup... all Bush's fault.
is /sarc really necessary?
oops - 3000 dead
If I understand the Left, Bush didn't do anything for 6 minutes after the attack but read a chalderns book, (He did not do enough) then he brought the country together and we were all happy.
Then we attacked Afghanistan which was ok (maybe) but lets not talk about it,
then Bush lied about Iraq and we went to war there ...(He did too much)
He did too much when he passed the patriot act, and too much when he went after terrorists making phone calls,
then he did too little by not protecting the ports, then Bush did too much by scaring the children when he talks about all this....
but over all he has not done enough
Those lefties left that watch ABC may actually have to think;)
In a way, I wish the writers had stuck to the exact facts about the lack of response by the Clintonistas. No need to dramatize anything, as your list aptly points out.
Clinton did attack,he attacked Iraqi WMD sites and the Al Shifa plant in Sudan...but Al Queda was the number one priority.
Exactly. Hey, I'd trade a questionable scene of berger slamming down the phone for an absolutely verifiable scene of berger stuffing documents down his pants any day.
All depends on what "minor editing" was done as a result of last weekends meetings at Disney. The un-edited version is out there and has been seen by many. This may prove to be quite interesting.
And attended by Democrat leaders of both houses of Congress...
You get the feeling that if Bill Clinton was on television pulling a gun and shooting someone, he or his suckophants (misspelling intentional) would claim that a Republican put a Jedi mind trick on his hand?
scary, but more likely true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.