ABC Docudrama: To Shift 9/11 Blame To Clinton

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
You know, what gets me is that everyone thinks that because we are America, home of the free (THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!), land of the brave (THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!), we can do no wrong... Like everything started because someone somewhere decided the Twin Towers would make a great target...

Where along the line did we do something that would make someone angry enough to spend millions of dollars to sneak hundreds (low estimate of terrorist sleeper cells) into the US to fly those planes into the towers? You think it started 4 or 5 years before they started planning 9/11? No, it had to be the straw that broke the camels back...

It started way before either of the Bushes or Clinton. We made enemies of these people many, many years ago... We stepped on toes along the way, and are just too blind to see where our big feet are landing.

Not that I say the proper responce is to kill innocents, just that we all have to take an honest look at where our faults lie, I learned a long time ago that it takes two to make a fight, and we need to be sure that we acknowledge our mistakes in this situation, and try to correct our behavior. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is the ultimate in insanity. Treating people with respect is not appeasement, and correcting your mistakes is the adult and responsible thing to do.

(No, I am not anti-American, just anti-stupidity...)


SkittlesLA




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkittlesLA
(No, I am not anti-American, just anti-stupidity...)
SkittlesLA


I also call it common sense.

Oh, but that doesn't make any difference when it comes to faithful supporters of the present administration, they rather die believing than finding the truth.

And you will be tag and tag and tag until either you lose your temper (no recommended) or grow such a thick skin that nothing will hurt you point of view any more.

That is recommended.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Ding! Ding! Ding!



FlyersFan is sold! It works!!!


dgtempe is sold! It works!!!



Exactly what i mean. Put this out at a vulnerable time and the rabid right will suck it up without any problem!


Exactly what i mean. Put this out at a vulnerable time (2004 elections) and the rabid left will suck it up without any problem!


Dirty politics at work. That's all it is.


My responses were about Michael Moore's film. But we're not talking about a fictional film financed by that political hack George Soros this time. This is a documentary (docudrama?) put out by ABC News.

OMG
After all that has been previously said and written about Moore's blatant attempt to influence the last election (which many others here applauded), how hypocritical is all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth?

Answer: Totally hypocritical.



[edit on 9/7/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
This is a documentary put out by ABC News.


Try again, this Docudrama is a ABC / Disney production.


www.thismodernworld.com...




[edit on 7/9/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Looks like the DEMS don't want the American public to be reminded of the truth...





Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football"—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons.



A highly reliable man...




Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location;

www.buzzpatterson.com...




And yes, Sandy was trying to cover this up and other damming evidence about 9/11 by stuffing those documents into his pants...i mean its pretty cut and dried here people...these are the facts. And ABC i guess is going to give people some of it.

-- Boat



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Well gee-whiz, this is the 5 year anniversary of 9-11-01. There was a big deal on the 5th anniversary of the OKC bombing. Why not? In 5 more years there will be another one.

Roper



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Before the left gets their panties too much in a wad over this, I need to point out that their attempt to influence the 2004 elections through the Michael Moore/George Soros film really didn't work - since Bush still won.

So, why all the worries that this new ABC News "docudrama" might actually affect the 2006 elections?

Unless, maybe, they are worried because this time the film actually contains some truth?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
You know, it's time to stop the blame game. Both sides made mistakes.

We are at the 5 year mark of September 11th and it is very clear both the Clinton and Bush administration have some fault here.

Hell you could go all the way back to Jimmy Carter if you really want to lay blame on how the Islamic terrorist movement started, but I am not.

It's is time to relfect on what happened, remember the ones we lost and make sure this never happens again anywhere!

I have not seen the movie yet, I plan to watch all 5 hours when it airs.

I understand that the Clinton administrations people are upset about this doc u drama and for not getting an advanced viewing of the film.

I wonder if the Bush administration received advanced viewing, or OBL and AQ, did ABC send the film to King Fauds people because Saudia Arabia was knee deep in this as well.

My point is this, it's a movie, it's one persons point of view. We had Michael Moores views on this shown daily on the network news so maybe it's time for a different angle on this event.

GBA!



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkittlesLA
Where along the line did we do something that would make someone angry enough to spend millions of dollars to sneak hundreds (low estimate of terrorist sleeper cells) into the US to fly those planes into the towers? You think it started 4 or 5 years before they started planning 9/11? No, it had to be the straw that broke the camels back...

The estimate is less than $500K was spent by AQ for 9/11.

And what did we do to deserve 9/11? Of course, it must be our fault, right?

No. The reason is that bin Laden is Saudia Arabian, and he cannot stand the fact that we had the audacity to set foot on his Holy Ground. That is the root of his hatred for us. Look it up.


Not that I say the proper responce is to kill innocents, just that we all have to take an honest look at where our faults lie, I learned a long time ago that it takes two to make a fight, and we need to be sure that we acknowledge our mistakes in this situation, and try to correct our behavior. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is the ultimate in insanity. Treating people with respect is not appeasement, and correcting your mistakes is the adult and responsible thing to do.

We did nothing except to buy their oil from them. After we drilled it out of the ground. We refined it and sold it. And, in the process, made them some of the wealthiest people the planet has ever known.

But the response from AQ is childish. They are still living in a 4th century culture and mentality that stones women in public. These are people you want to reason with?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Looks like Bubba is taking a hissy fit over the docudrama.. as he bites his lower lip with sensitivity and passion...




Clinton Demands ABC Fix 9/11 Movie or Pull It

An angry Bill Clinton is demanding that ABC "correct all errors? in its upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11? ? or pull it from the air.

In a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger, Clinton refuted several of the miniseries? assertions, including that he was too preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about Osama bin Laden.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,? reads the letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton?s office.

Bill Clinton




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
It seems to me like the writers just used their own creativity to fill in some minor areas and condense the story, but the main story is totally accurate. Clinton & Co. are nitpicking on minor details just to get the whole mostly accurate thing pulled.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I saw Farengheit 9/11-I dont remember the lies..........

What where they again?

With time, we've seen it all. SO why mention Michael Moore> Because he's fat?



Name me one thing he lied about...There's nothing.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I saw Farengheit 9/11-I dont remember the lies..........


I suggest you watch FahrenHYPE 9/11 then, it documents MM's lies and distortions quite well.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I want you to name the lies.

That's what i asked for. I remember the entire movie and it seems to me that there were no lies...except a little hype here and there. To add drama....

Please name the lies.

Thanks.


Tell you what: The beginning had Osama's family being whisked off in a rush overseas immediatedly after 9/11....the middle had a lot of the relationship that exists between the Bushe's and the Arabs....

There are some highlights, may jolt your memories.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I saw Farengheit 9/11-I dont remember the lies..........

What where they again?

With time, we've seen it all. SO why mention Michael Moore> Because he's fat?



Name me one thing he lied about...There's nothing.


dgtempe was sold! It worked


You keep ignoring the charge that Moore's film was politically motivated in an attempt to influence the 2004 election. Perhaps because you know it is true.

And what exactly are the problems with this new film again? Your fear that years of leftist propaganda might be undone in just the 2 nights of this "docudrama" - by reminding Americans why we are in this mess to begin with?

Actually, Moore's distortions and other gross inaccuracies were pointed out by many and often at the time. Some chose not to pay any attention because, perhaps, it didn't fit their agenda.

Now for some of those same people to cry and complain about this ABC News docudrama, well, the better course might just be silence.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I want you to name the lies.

That's what i asked for. I remember the entire movie and it seems to me that there were no lies...except a little hype here and there. To add drama....

Please name the lies.

Thanks.


Tell you what: The beginning had Osama's family being whisked off in a rush overseas immediatedly after 9/11....the middle had a lot of the relationship that exists between the Bushe's and the Arabs....

There are some highlights, may jolt your memories.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by dgtempe]


Then I challenge you to read this entire article. The whole thing, as it addresses what you just said plus a lot "moore".

article


In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003.



... why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?



More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.


and perhaps my favorite part of the article (read this carefully):


Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.



[edit on 9/7/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
It's a political movie. It's just like watching the regular news, one side smearing the other. Apparently it's going to show it like it is, and this seems to be enough to worry the left. Which says a lot.

Anyway, it's not all Clinton's fault, just like it's not all Bush's fault. Really, what's the point in arguing about it.

I think that makes sense, apparently I'm coming down with something so I'm feeling kind of blah. Just watch the film and see what's in it before we get crazy about it.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Ohhh, those points arent even worth talking about. YOUR propaganda against reality.
Pleeeeze....

The truth is Bush did have the Arabs in his pocket, Halliberton stood to gain $$$$$$, bla bla bla bla bla....

Michael Moore was correct,imo...IN FACT, if i have complaints about the movie, it is because he didnt quite show the truth of the attacks-masterminded by Dick & Bush & co. It lacked information that even then, was pretty obvious to many Americans.

This has been a war for profit- Just like MM insinuated.




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I have to agree with Dg but Moore was right, he did told the facts and they have become the truth.

Now blaming Clinton for something that happen under Bush it seems like political motivated and let no forget fullllllllll of propaganda.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Bush family loves oil business
Clinton felt pressure from Liberals exposing taliban cruelty and axed the deal with American companies (haliburton).

We are now in plan B ladies and gentlemen. Kick butt don't take names...

AAC


Well that is a good part of it. The Taliban once installed proved difficult to remove or deal with didn't they? But I'm not sure what you mean by plan B? Is there part of this that we haven't been told about yet?





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join