Clinton officials rip ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11’

[SuzeQuze]

Get ready to be fired up, Mary, if you aren't already.

Network calls miniseries ‘a dramatization ... not a documentary’

By Howard Kurtz
The Washington Post

Updated: 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."

Marc Platt, the film's executive producer, said that although it "does contain composite and conflated scenes and representative characters and dialogue, we've worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The former Clinton aides voiced their objections in letters to Robert A. Iger, chief executive of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., but the network refused to make changes or to give them advance copies of the movie. They were not interviewed by ABC; it hired as a co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel.

"In an undertaking this gargantuan," Platt said, "it's impossible to interview every single person available, and we didn't believe we needed to." He said that "maybe I'm naive" in thinking that hiring only Kean would not prompt criticism of a political slant.

Clinton’s legacy
The fierceness of the debate reflects a recognition that a $40 million miniseries -- whose cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Penny Johnson Jerald -- can damage Clinton's legacy in the anti-terrorism fight on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Among the scenes that the Clinton team said are fictional:

Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

Tenet is depicted as challenging Albright for having alerted Pakistan in advance of the August 1998 missile strike that unsuccessfully targeted bin Laden.
"Madame Secretary," Tenet is seen saying, "the Pakistani security service, the ISI, has close ties with the Taliban." Albright is seen shouting: "We had to inform the Pakistanis. There are regional factors involved." Tenet then complains that "we've enhanced bin Laden's stature."

Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.

"The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling FBI agent John P. O'Neill: "Republicans went all out for impeachment. I just don't see the president in this climate willing to take chances."
O'Neill responds: "So it's okay if somebody kills bin Laden, so long as he didn't give the order. . . . It's pathetic." The Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike, but added that the "intense partisanship of the period" was one factor that "likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden."

Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.

Letters of protest
Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative, told Frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates "the frequent opportunities the administration had in the '90s to stop bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."

Nowrasteh drew criticism from Reagan administration officials for his Showtime movie "The Day Reagan Was Shot." He told the Los Angeles Daily News then that he "made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the [Reagan] administration because I didn't want them to stymie my efforts."

The assault on "The Path to 9/11" assumed the trappings of a campaign yesterday. Four senior House Democrats -- John Conyers Jr., Jane Harman, John D. Dingell and Louise M. Slaughter -- have written Iger to demand that the inaccuracies be corrected. Spurred by the Center for American Progress, which is headed by Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, 25,000 people have sent letters of protest to ABC.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company



from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/

[strandinthewind]

While Clinton's record on terrorism is better than W's record, the fact remains that the US was attacked many times during the Clinton administration.

Them's the facts and not to say them is silly.

But, to spin them is just wrong.

[SuzeQuze]

While Clinton's record on terrorism is better than W's record, the fact remains that the US was attacked many times during the Clinton administration.

Them's the facts and not to say them is silly.

But, to spin them is just wrong.

That is not relevent to the fabrication that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and refused.

[SuzeQuze]

Oh yeah, and ABC has created study materials for teachers and encouraged them to show the movie in their classrooms. Why would they do that with a fictionalized account of the events?

Also, the filmmaker is a self-described conservative as well as a friend of Limbaugh (who received an advanced copy while Keith Olberman did not).

[estranged4life]

the fact remains that the US was attacked many times during the Clinton administration.

OKC? Some higher ups in the Clinton adminstration must've knew an attack was coming on the morning of April 19,1995, Why else were memo's passed to 'certain' govt. worker/officials (The ATF office in the Murrah Building & a local Federal Court judge whose office was in the Federal Courthouse which is directly behind the Murrah Building. This judge was never asked to testify in either the Federal case against McVeigh/Nichols nor in Nichols case against the State of Oklahoma :shrug: ) to be aware of a possible attack that morning and to have their employee's take the day off from work.

I'm sick of hearing conspiracies with 911, let's see the national media talk about those surrounding OKC (C'mon Micheal Moore, here's a great chance to shine).

Oh wait, that wont ever happen...The govt. "caught", "tried" &"convicted" the conspirators, thus ending the story, to which I call Bull****!!!

[DavidMn]

Theyre all bull****ters in one way or another..

[gldstwmn]

That is not relevent to the fabrication that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and refused.

Exactly. It's a blatant lie. How convenient of "them" to pull this **** right before the elections. Does anyone still believe that the Republicans will keep them safe from terra? :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

That is not relevent to the fabrication that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and refused.
Who's behind this travesty? (sorry I came to this late, I woke up late this AM and I was still fired up about the Scouts :distress:

Yes we were attacked during Clinton's tenure but we also caught the man responsible for bombing the WTC the first time during his tenure. Clinton's record is WAY better than W's and thems the facts too.:mad:

[irishgrl]

Oh yeah, and ABC has created study materials for teachers and encouraged them to show the movie in their classrooms. Why would they do that with a fictionalized account of the events?

Also, the filmmaker is a self-described conservative as well as a friend of Limbaugh (who received an advanced copy while Keith Olberman did not).

shoot, if I'd've read just ONE MORE POST :laugh: !!! sorry gang!

anyway, this is bogus bs and Im surprised Disney/ABC is doing it. What do they stand to gain by this obvious smoke and mirrors act? :confused:

[irishgrl]

Do DO Do DO! (thats my best trumpet text!!)

I just saw this:

Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie

By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro2 hours, 19 minutes ago

Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

Chronicling events leading to the September 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.

The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the November 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.

Democrats have chided Republicans for failing to implement security recommendations by the 9/11 commission, and Republicans have portrayed Democrats as soft on terrorism.

In recent days, former members of the Clinton administration also lodged complaints with Iger, urging ABC and Disney to fix or eliminate what they called errors and fabrications.

ABC issued a statement saying the production, "The Path to 9/11," was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus "premature and irresponsible."

'DRAMATIC LICENSE'

Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that "there is dramatic license taken" in the docudrama to "render the program effective and accessible for viewers."

"But we do try within the boundaries of what is fair and reasonable to communicate the essence of what occurred (and) the intentions of those individuals involved," he told Reuters in a telephone interview from London. "We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort."

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats -- depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security advisor Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission -- was a "conflation of events."

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

The September 11 attacks occurred about eight months after Clinton turned over the presidency in January 2001 to Republican George W. Bush.

For several years, Democrats have complained the Bush administration failed to capture or kill bin Laden when he reportedly was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region in late 2001. They also argue the war in Iraq later took away resources for tracking down bin Laden.

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced.

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one," he said.

The cast of the film includes Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent and expert on Islamic militants, Donnie Wahlberg as a covert CIA operative, Amy Madigan as a high-ranking CIA analyst, Patricia Heaton as a U.S. diplomat and Stephen Root as White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke.

"The Path to 9/11" is not the first historical TV drama to draw a partisan outcry. CBS canceled a miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan after Republicans complained that it unfairly and inaccurately portrayed the former president. "The Reagans" ended up airing on sibling cable channel Showtime.

(Additional reporting by Steve Gorman and Ellen Wulfhorst)

Reuters/VNU

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

[gldstwmn]

If this thing airs, there is a very good chance of ABC being sued for it. they have already been notified by President Clinton's attorney.

[irishgrl]

Ho ****! Go for the JUGULAR!

[estranged4life]

links with interesting articles:

Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm



TIME.com Print Page: Nation -- Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,333835,00.html



TIME.com: How The U.S. Missed The Clues -- May 27, 2002

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002495-1,00.html




I remember reading a TIME magazine article where it said the mistake Clinton made was when the US fired the Tomahawks at Afghanistan.

The Taliban government was getting ready to ask their guest Osama Bin Laden to leave, They were starting to no longer believe his words about the Muslim world would soon be attacked by the US.

The Taliban were within weeks, possibly days of asking him to leave when those Tomahawks were fired. OBL used the missle attack as his proof that the US wanted to kill Muslims of the world, Thus getting back in favor with the Taliban.

Wished I could find that article online, It was an interesting read.



Oh, I forgot...I watched an interesting show on DiscoveryTimes channel Tuesday called "Triple Cross-Ali Mohamed". It was about a triple agent by the name of Ali Mohamed, Who was arrested in 1998 and tried in 1999 (He pleaded guilty and admitted to the charges) for training those in OBL's terror faction, scouting out the US embassies that were bombed in East Africa. He was personally requested by OBL himself, to train OBL's security forces after OBL survived an assissination attempt.

The one errie part was when he was moved to a "Witness Protection" portion of a Federal Prison immediately after Sept.11th, He was questioned by the CIA/FBI about if he had any knowledge of what happened. According to the CIA official on this show, he knew how the hijackers would be seated in the plane (A couple in First Class, a few in Coach), How they would carry on box-knifes in their carryon luggage, and how the planes would be used as missles to hit major targets in the US. They, the CIA, believe this guy could have also trained the 911 hijackers.

Weird, how someone in US custody could have known how the workings of the 911 hijackings would occur considering he was in custody since 1998.


Ali Mohamed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

[irishgrl]

links with interesting articles:

Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm



TIME.com Print Page: Nation -- Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,333835,00.html



TIME.com: How The U.S. Missed The Clues -- May 27, 2002

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002495-1,00.html




I remember reading a TIME magazine article where it said the mistake Clinton made was when the US fired the Tomahawks at Afghanistan.

The Taliban government was getting ready to ask their guest Osama Bin Laden to leave, They were starting to no longer believe his words about the Muslim world would soon be attacked by the US.

The Taliban were within weeks, possibly days of asking him to leave when those Tomahawks were fired. OBL used the missle attack as his proof that the US wanted to kill Muslims of the world, Thus getting back in favor with the Taliban.

Wished I could find that article online, It was an interesting read.



Oh, I forgot...I watched an interesting show on DiscoveryTimes channel Tuesday called "Triple Cross-Ali Mohamed". It was about a triple agent by the name of Ali Mohamed, Who was arrested in 1998 and tried in 1999 (He pleaded guilty and admitted to the charges) for training those in OBL's terror faction, scouting out the US embassies that were bombed in East Africa. He was personally requested by OBL himself, to train OBL's security forces after OBL survived an assissination attempt.

The one errie part was when he was moved to a "Witness Protection" portion of a Federal Prison immediately after Sept.11th, He was questioned by the CIA/FBI about if he had any knowledge of what happened. According to the CIA official on this show, he knew how the hijackers would be seated in the plane (A couple in First Class, a few in Coach), How they would carry on box-knifes in their carryon luggage, and how the planes would be used as missles to hit major targets in the US. They, the CIA, believe this guy could have also trained the 911 hijackers.

Weird, how someone in US custody could have known how the workings of the 911 hijackings would occur considering he was in custody since 1998.


Ali Mohamed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed


Sorry my friend....where TIME once stood for excellence in journalism, now it is just a space taker in the collective column of news.......

[estranged4life]

Sorry my friend....where TIME once stood for excellence in journalism, now it is just a space taker in the collective column of news.......

Clinton in those articles, it blames the intelligence agencies.

The one article about how the Tomahawks helped regain OBL's lost favor in the eyes of the Taliban is the only thing I have ever read that shows negative on Clinton...But how could he have known.

Personally, I found the show about Ali Mohamed to be more interesting than any magazine article or any other TV doctumentary about the pre-cusors of 911. This guy knew alot and the US intelligent organizations trusted him twice, which was 2 times more than they should've.

I dont think terrorists particularly care which party is in power in the US, all they want to see is dead Americans...They dont discriminate between Demo or Repub.

[estranged4life]

Sorry my friend....where TIME once stood for excellence in journalism, now it is just a space taker in the collective column of news.......

maybe that is why a new (12 week) subscription can be bought for $5 :lol:

[irishgrl]

maybe that is why a new (12 week) subscription can be bought for $5 :lol:

Congrats~ you get the GOLD STAR~~

[estranged4life]

Congrats~ you get the GOLD STAR~~

I wouldnt pay for another magazine (ie-Entertainment Weekly) that I wouldnt want to read...TIME isnt worth the $5 or the Gold Star.

[desertangel]

loosechange911.com is another one.

In 1993 or 94, someone gave me a copy of a right wing newsletter that came out of Texas. An article stated Clinton's administration was going to methodically remove our rights to freedom and privacy under the palpable guise of being in the interest of national and world safety. Talk about a spin... AND a 9/11 conspiracy! Truly frightening.

[irishgrl]

loosechange911.com is another one.

In 1993 or 94, someone gave me a copy of a right wing newsletter that came out of Texas. An article stated Clinton's administration was going to methodically remove our rights to freedom and privacy under the palpable guise of being in the interest of national and world safety. Talk about a spin... AND a 9/11 conspiracy! Truly frightening.

doncha love how the truth just SMEARS all their faces with egg?

[SuzeQuze]

doncha love how the truth just SMEARS all their faces with egg?

Yes, but it shocks me that they just let it dry there and pretend it didn't. Although I'm learning not to be so shocked because these people don't believe in "reality" like most people do, they think they create reality and then tell people what it is.

[strandinthewind]

That is not relevent to the fabrication that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and refused.

That is not a complete fabrication :shrug:

He had many opportunities - some I think we will never know about.

The man did not walk on water :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

That is not a complete fabrication :shrug:

He had many opportunities - some I think we will never know about.

The man did not walk on water :shrug:

I never said he walked on water. How do you know he had many opportunities?

[strandinthewind]

I never said he walked on water. How do you know he had many opportunities?

Well, we were attacked how many times - and successfully at that. I mean if you're gonna fault W for 9/11 - then Clinton must be faulted as well. Certainly there were warning about those attacks :shrug:

And - Clinton sent more than one missle to get OBL - but missed. That sucks.

[SuzeQuze]

Well, we were attacked how many times - and successfully at that. I mean if you're gonna fault W for 9/11 - then Clinton must be faulted as well. Certainly there were warning about those attacks :shrug:

And - Clinton sent more than one missle to get OBL - but missed. That sucks.

Were all of those attacks by Osama? Also, Clinton never said "I don't know where he is, it's not that important, it's not our priority." The fact is 9/11 is a separate attack and it occurred on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. To blame him for the wild incompetence of the current administration is misleading. He was not perfect and made mistakes. However, he told this administration on his way out that Osama and terrorism should be their number one priority in defense and they ignored him.

[strandinthewind]

Were all of those attacks by Osama? Also, Clinton never said "I don't know where he is, it's not that important, it's not our priority." The fact is 9/11 is a separate attack and it occurred on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. To blame him for the wild incompetence of the current administration is misleading. He was not perfect and made mistakes. However, he told this administration on his way out that Osama and terrorism should be their number one priority in defense and they ignored him.

Actually, your inability to assign any blame to Clinton for anything is what I am talking about. I am not talking about W, who certainly is a horror.

[irishgrl]

Actually, your inability to assign any blame to Clinton for anything is what I am talking about. I am not talking about W, who certainly is a horror.

but the man responsible for bombing the WTC the first time WAS caught. On Clinton's watch.

[strandinthewind]

but the man responsible for bombing the WTC the first time WAS caught. On Clinton's watch.

One of like seven?

In other words, we were attacked elsewhere and they were not caught. Them's the facts no matter how you look at them.

[SuzeQuze]

Actually, your inability to assign any blame to Clinton for anything is what I am talking about. I am not talking about W, who certainly is a horror.

You're making an assumption. And why do you have to make it personal? I'm just talking about facts. And 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, period!

[irishgrl]

One of like seven?

In other words, we were attacked elsewhere and they were not caught. Them's the facts no matter how you look at them.

I could probably go dig up WAAAAAAAY more than ONE time Clinton caught or fought terrorists. Why do you always have this knee jerk reaction to smear Clinton every chance you get? You are as bad as the Far Right Wackos where he's concerned :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Who's behind this travesty?

ABC is showing this commercial free. Interesting.

[SuzeQuze]

ABC is showing this commercial free. Interesting.

Perhaps because it is a commercial?

[gldstwmn]

And 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, period!

The first WTC attack happened after Clinton was in office for 30 days. So really, the finger could be pointed at George HW Bush as well.

[gldstwmn]

Perhaps because it is a commercial?

Touche. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I could probably go dig up WAAAAAAAY more than ONE time Clinton caught or fought terrorists. Why do you always have this knee jerk reaction to smear Clinton every chance you get? You are as bad as the Far Right Wackos where he's concerned :shrug:

Clinton was not on the left. In fact, he was IMO far right - just without the dogma.

[SuzeQuze]

A petition for those interested: http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

[irishgrl]

A petition for those interested: http://www.democrats.org/pathto911


signed, thanks!

[estranged4life]

George HW Bush

Does that mean Hoping (For) War??? :shrug: :thumbsup:

[desertangel]

doncha love how the truth just SMEARS all their faces with egg?


Yes. If that's really the case, it seems rather childish to me, now... looking back on it... to say Clinton's administration was going to do all these things to undermine our freedom and it ended up really happening on Ws watch. And it makes me think the Repubs had secret plans they were trying to keep up their sleeve and couldn't so they let it out as part of the smear campaign against BC. The Lewinsky thing was a better smear campaign... I mean, to speculate and try and hang something nasty on somebody that's really something you plan on doing yourself in the future is just lame, to say the least.

We could go back and forth on the "whose watch" this whole thing started under, but I think we'd have to go back pretty far. To me, it doesn't really matter who started it, but who made the biggest mess. From what I've seen of past administrations, approaching foreign affairs with a great deal of finese seems more effective. Although the US wasn't exactly the world power then that it is now, is it really necessary to be a bully just to stay on top?

The problem with all this is, most of us don't necessarily possess the ability to do the required homework on either side of these issues. Most of what we have to go on is what other people write and we probably won't know their slant, either. I would love to be an investigative reporter, mostly because I don't trust most other people's interpretations and opinions. Reading Hitler's Mein Kampf, specifically the sections having to do with propaganda, how to be a good orator and dealing with the masses, really made me look at the media and people in the public eye very differently. Besides, partisan political rangling irritates the crap out of me.

Anyway... rambling. Politics Schmolotics... I guess it's what we/I do when we get tired of talking about Stevie's hair. :lol:

[bikerchic]

Anyone watch? I did. Watched it with a grain of salt. Kinda long without any commercials. I can see why Clinton didn't want it aired. Ohhhh Monica. Just the fact that that the government knew that there was threats of flying planes into buildings years before the attack and nothing was said or done about it just blows my mind.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Just the fact that that the government knew that there was threats of flying planes into buildings years before the attack and nothing was said or done about it just blows my mind.

I know - and there are other things too. Like the devices that can stop missles from hitting commercial airliners. The military and other govt. planes use them, but the airlines (due to effective lobbying) do not have to put them on their aircraft - I suspect because they said it would cost too much :rolleyes:

And - I agree that Clinton shares culpability with W and Bush I on this. In the end though, I think W is the worst because although all three killed in the name of WMD - W's seems the comparative worst - though that comparison is rather sick to me because killing even one is too much and the actions of the worst (W) do not lessen the horrible actions of the least (argulably Clinton) -- This is why when people talk about Iraq, OBL, and the war on terror, all three Presidents must be considered together as this current state was not instantly formed or did not end with each Presidential term. Rather, it was an organics thing - Did I just sound like LB :eek:

[bikerchic]

The fact that Bush went into that 2nd grade classroom, knowing that a plane had hit the first tower (he had to know it was Bin Laden) and then remain there even longer with the news that a plane hit the 2nd tower is mind boggling.

[strandinthewind]

The fact that Bush went into that 2nd grade classroom, knowing that a plane had hit the first tower (he had to know it was Bin Laden) and then remain there even longer with the news that a plane hit the 2nd tower is mind boggling.

I often wonder what was the mind set for that. I think in some way the SS knew W was in a safe, secure area and they were perhaps trying to fugure out which plan to execute to get him out of there. But, the more I think about it, the more him staying there makes no sense, esp. given the actions of his admin. five years later. I just cannot bring myself to think they knew about 9/11 and did nothing to stop it.

[bikerchic]

they were perhaps trying to fugure out which plan to execute to get him out of there.
But shouldn't they have had "that" plan ready for something like this? It's the president for god's sake and they knew about these threats for years :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

But shouldn't they have had "that" plan ready for something like this? It's the president for god's sake and they knew about these threats for years :shrug:

I agree - they likely had several options to choose from. I am just saying that I suspect the plan was to keep the Pres. in the securest location, which presumably the school was, until they could determine where to fly AF-1 to. I mean if there were rouge airplanes in the air, that could have taken time to figure out. I am not saying that was the deal - but it is likely. But, I agree, I now think him sitting there was odd.

On edit - I do think it smacks of cowardice though. I mean he portrays himself as the gun slinging wild west cowboy and then he appears to cower in a school while Americans are dying. But, his actions were similar, but IMO worse, when he was called into duty for Nam and instead took the easy way out. What can you expect from a hog but a grunt?

[bikerchic]

I thought this movie was probably one of the best made for tv movie's I've ever seen. The producing, directing, acting, constant close-ups, shaky camera and a few out of focus shots were really great film making. The location shoots were fantastic. I just can't believe how much the Clinton and Bush administration knew about these terror attacks before they happened. Unf*cking believable :distress: Just the whole movie was "wow"!

[strandinthewind]

I thought this movie was probably one of the best made for tv movie's I've ever seen. The producing, directing, acting, constant close-ups, shaky camera and a few out of focus shots were really great film making. The location shoots were fantastic. I just can't believe how much the Clinton and Bush administration knew about these terror attacks before they happened. Unf*cking believable :distress: Just the whole movie was "wow"!

I agree. I mean goodness forbid that I was at the helm and had to quantify, qualify, and analyze all the data into a coherent strategy. But, it seems sort of obvious in some ways. Or, to put it another way, the US Govt. seemingly acts only when it has to and does seemingly little very obvious things as prevention. I cite the missle deterrent systems on commercial airliners. To me, that is an obvious thing to do. But, it is not done because no plane has been (officially) shot down yet. But, after one is, they will all have it.

Then, there are the power plays amongst the Agencies and the public face of the President must be protected. I mean does anyone really think the Lewinsky debacle didn't play into the timing air strikes whether they were warranted?

That just sucks.