The Path to 9/11 - docudrama or propaganda? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-11-2006, 12:10 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 06:57 AM
I watched some of it last night. It is more like a dramatization of the National Geographic Special "Inside 9/11", that is probably airing tonight. There's nothing much different from the NGC one.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 03:47 PM   #47
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Ted Koppel's special on Discovery was excellent.

"The Price of Security" was the most balanced and fair discussion of what is going on in this country since 9-11. The first part was an investigative piece then he had a townhall part with Bush Admin. members, ACLU, Gen Zinni, Family members, and other critics and Bush supporters. He also gave a tour of Gitmo as it is now. Very thought provoking and intriguing.

Next months special will be on Iran.

Excellent on Discovery.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 05:51 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:57 AM
NEW YORK (AP) -- Editing changes made by ABC to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" were cosmetic and didn't change the meaning of scenes that had angered several former Clinton administration officials, a spokesman for the former president said Monday.

As for Clinton, he didn't bother watching the movie that angered so many people who once worked for him.

"He made the choice that most Americans made," said Jay Carson, Clinton Foundation spokesman. "Of a fictionalized drama version of September 11 or the Manning brothers playing football against one another, he chose the latter."

The movie was flattened in the ratings by the debut of NBC's Sunday night football, matching Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts against his younger brother Eli of the New York Giants. The football game had an estimated 20.7 million viewers, while "The Path to 9/11" had 13 million, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The ABC movie did, however, beat CBS' third airing of its "9/11" documentary, which was seen by an estimated 10.6 million people, Nielsen said....

...One scene, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have hurt the effort to go after Osama bin Laden.

In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."

O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

Another scene in the critics' cut showed O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 09:09 AM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:57 AM
How come this wasn't in the movie?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-di...-_b_29188.html

"Given the partisan shitstorm over Disney's defamatory right-wing 9/11 docudrama -- and in particular the wholly invented (and now reportedly redacted) scene in which a quivering Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger loses his mojo and hangs up on a Special Forces officer who has bin Laden in his sights and is seeking permission to fire -- it's worth remembering a similar incident, involving a real Al Qaeda terrorist, that actually happened.

"In the buildup to the Iraq war, President Bush was repeatedly offered actionable intelligence to take out the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. As retired CIA officer Michael Sheuer -- the former head of the now disbanded unit that hunted bin Laden -- recalls it:

"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot... Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp ... experimenting with ricin and anthrax ... any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."

Gen. John M. Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff at the time, told the Wall Street Journal that Zarqawi represented "one of the best targets we ever had." According to reporting by NBC News back in March 2004, the question of taking out Zarqawi was instead "debated to death" in the White House's National Security Council. Why? As NBC put it, "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 01:36 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
There is much we will never know about Sandy Berger and Clinton because Sandy risked a life sentence in Leavenworth to steal 9-11 related notes to Clinton from the National Archives.

Neither administration handled the terrorist threat correctly. The Bush Administration is still not doing enough, but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever done or are willing to do.

I found it a bit ironic that the terrorists-in-training we shooting at an image of Clinton. They never had a better friend and ally.

I am a National Guard Officer, and I joined up because of what happened on 9-11. If you think we can talk our way out of the Islamo-fascist threat - you are sadly mistaken. If you think we will eliminate the threat by leaving the Middle East or abandoning Israel - you are also naive and misinformed.

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 02:00 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.


so ... keep driving your SUV?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 02:03 PM   #52
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Neither administration handled the terrorist threat correctly. The Bush Administration is still not doing enough, but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever done or are willing to do.

I found it a bit ironic that the terrorists-in-training we shooting at an image of Clinton. They never had a better friend and ally.

I am a National Guard Officer, and I joined up because of what happened on 9-11. If you think we can talk our way out of the Islamo-fascist threat - you are sadly mistaken. If you think we will eliminate the threat by leaving the Middle East or abandoning Israel - you are also naive and misinformed.

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.
It's post like this, that make me fear for our future.

First of all you start off by saying "but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever or are willing to do." This is such partisn bullshit. When have the Dems been in power when we had something like 9-11 happen? Bush wasn't doing anything more than Clinton did prior 9-11. But this is what partisan rhetoric will do, destroy perspective.

And then I love your "we can't talk our way out it, so we must kill" mentality. There is a lot of gray in between talk and war. But you don't get that. You also don't understand that you WILL NEVER DESTROY terrorism with war. Never.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:08 PM   #53
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:57 AM
AEON, what do you think correct handling of the terrorist threat should look like?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:42 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It's post like this, that make me fear for our future.
We should be at least a little afraid. However, courage is defined by the ability to overcome fear and do the right thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

When have the Dems been in power when we had something like 9-11 happen?
Here’s a few: the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Bush wasn't doing anything more than Clinton did prior 9-11. But this is what partisan rhetoric will do, destroy perspective.
You are correct; both were doing next to nothing to battle terrorism. Of course, Bush was only Governor of Texas and Clinton was the Commander in Chief of the world’s strongest military. I wouldn’t want to destroy perspective…lol

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

And then I love your "we can't talk our way out it, so we must kill" mentality. There is a lot of gray in between talk and war. But you don't get that. You also don't understand that you WILL NEVER DESTROY terrorism with war. Never.
I do think that most international problems can be resolved diplomatically, especially those issues that revolve around commerce. However, there is no negotiating with a mindset that is determined to convert the world to Islam or destroy it. They claim this daily in videos and in radio broadcasts. You may think they are not serious, but I do not believe we can afford to take that gamble.

I agree, you will never be able to fully destroy terrorism with war – or with anything else. But we certainly can prevent most of it and minimize the weapons the enemy has at his disposal.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:53 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
AEON, what do you think correct handling of the terrorist threat should look like?
There is a book titled "The Pentagon's New Map" by Tom Barnett. Even though he is a Democrat, it is the best plan I've seen to getting out of this mess. I highly recommend you read it, and I cannot summarize this book - for it requires an exhaustive reading to grasp the concepts.

The one thing that Barnett fails to include is this: Islamic extremism is currently enemy #1. Their agenda is global conversion or destruction - and they have not been elusive on this point.

Anyone who teaches it, preaches it, supports it, or acts on it needs to be stopped immediately. This isn't a game. Our future and our children's future depends on how we respond to this threat.

Our enemy does not care if you are a conservative or liberal (as a matter of fact, they hate liberals more because they teach behavioral tolerance). They do not hesitate to slaughter women and children. They do not hesitate to slaughter civilians. They will not hesitate to slaughter the very gatekeepers that let them into our pen.


In order for our civilization to survive we must admit there is an enemy that wants us dead. The next step is to properly identify that enemy. The final step is to remove that enemy.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:55 PM   #56
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:57 AM
This is a new documentary done in conjunction with the 9-11 families. Watch it to see how much Bush did.

http://mediachannel.org/PressForTruth2.htm
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:56 PM   #57
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two.
Pure partisan assumption. You know what they say about assumptions.



Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

You are correct; both were doing next to nothing to battle terrorism. Of course, Bush was only Governor of Texas and Clinton was the Commander in Chief of the world’s strongest military. I wouldn’t want to destroy perspective…lol
I was speaking of Bush's presidency. He spoke nothing of terrorism, he had access to the same info, his father was in office right before Clinton, he knew and did they same that Clinton did. So there's your perspective.

But you can keep pertending it's different.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I do think that most international problems can be resolved diplomatically, especially those issues that revolve around commerce. However, there is no negotiating with a mindset that is determined to convert the world to Islam or destroy it. They claim this daily in videos and in radio broadcasts. You may think they are not serious, but I do not believe we can afford to take that gamble.
Here you go again, something you've done since day one in FYM, putting words in people's mouth. Where did I say, I don't take it seriously? Disscussion is useless if you keep doing this.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

But we certainly can prevent most of it and minimize the weapons the enemy has their disposal.
We can also do this and probably at much longer terms if we find ways to eliminate the root causes. The root cause is not religion, if it were then why such a small percentage of Muslims? This hate is breeded in small dark places all over this world. Education, electricity, water are all pretty good starts, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 wasn't.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 04:00 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:57 AM
[q]Originally posted by AEON


And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two. [/q]



do you honestly believe this?

well, by this logic, i'm going to say that Al Gore wouldn't have withdrawn support from US troops in Tora Bora in late 2001 because he wanted to invade Iraq instead and today, under President Gore, we'd have OBL in custody, or dead.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 04:05 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The root cause is not religion, if it were then why such a small percentage of Muslims? This hate is breeded in small dark places all over this world. Education, electricity, water are all pretty good starts, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 wasn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Usama Bin Laden was a multi-millionaire.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 04:11 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]Originally posted by AEON


And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two. [/q]



do you honestly believe this?

well, by this logic, i'm going to say that Al Gore wouldn't have withdrawn support from US troops in Tora Bora in late 2001 because he wanted to invade Iraq instead and today, under President Gore, we'd have OBL in custody, or dead.
Yeah, you are right. It is impossible to speculate about how Gore would respond. Thankfully all we can do is speculate.

Do you know what really confuses me? I can't understand why the liberals aren't the ones LEADING this war. The Muslim extremists are the least "tolerant"and the most racist, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, close-minded people on this planet. They represent the total antithesis of everything the liberals claim to be about.

It is simply mindboggling…
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com