ABC Docudrama: To Shift 9/11 Blame To Clinton

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Remember this?

I was at a UNC lecture the other day where they played a video of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra deals during the Reagan administration. I was only 14 back then but was surprised by this particular clip. There was Olie in front of God and Country getting the third degree. But what he said stunned me. He was being drilled by some senator I didn't recognize who asked him:

'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'

Oliver replied, 'Yes I did sir.'

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't this just a little excessive?'

'No sir,' continued Oliver.

'No. And why not?'

'Because the life of my family and I were threatened.'

'Threatened? By who.'

'By a terrorist, sir.'

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden.'

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

'Why are you so afraid of this man?'

'Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of.'

'And what do you recommend we do about him?'

'If it were me I would recommend an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'

The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all they showed of the clip.

It's scary when you think 15 years ago the government was aware of Osama bin Laden and his potential threat to the security of the world. I guess like all great tyrants they start small but if left untended spread like the virus they truly are.

I know at the hearing for the Iran/Contra scandel this happened. Nobody listen. Even Al Gore did not have a clue.




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Former Clinton Aide says the docudrama is FACT and truth. I wonder if he's seen a transcript. Anyways .. he says it's the truth ...



And another article showing how Clinton dropped the ball ..
www.frontpagemag.com...

Bush inherited Clinton's failed US Security legacy ....
www.homelandsecurityus.com...

And in the end we have Clinton's own words about letting UBL get away -
www.frontpagemag.com...

February 2002 - Bill Clinton said about UBL - “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.”



[edit on 9/11/2006 by FlyersFan]

Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Everyone knows there were missed opportunities to get Bin Laden during the 90’s, but there were also other failures that lead to the attacks. In my opinion the people at the top of both administrations did not realize the danger we were in. Even if they had captured or killed Bin Laden, I believe the attack would have still happened.

There is plenty of blame to go around. In the words of Richard Clark, “Your government failed you.”

I didn't get to see the whole program last night, but from what I saw, it does seem biased and puts more emphasis on the missed opportunities, as if they had captured Bin Laden, then all the problems of terrorism would be taken care of. I think that is unrealistic.

Let’s see what they show tonight and how they portray the Bush administration.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Another fair point in this debate I think is the fact that assassinations pre-911 were a violation of international and domestic law. Did we know bin Laden was a killer at that point? If you take off the head of the hydra will three more take its place? We will reap what we sow in the coming decade following the indiscriminate bombing of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples. You thought bin Laden was powerful before? Now there are thousands of orphans willing to die for his cause in the name of the Almighty.

I ended up watching Discovery which had a Ted Koppel moderated special with survivors of the 911 attacks along with Ted Olsen, Gen. Zinni, and many others on both sides of the political spectrum. It was a wide ranging discussion of the issue of balancing the desire for security against the need to retain the civil liberties that make us the land of the free. It was very good and I thought the GOP scored some points as various congressmen spoke out against the Bush ineptitude in dealing with most things related to terrorism. Of course, it is an election year ...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well really the point is kinda null and void...

cnn.com has an article illustrating that most of America didnt bother to watch this anyway.


Clinton, most Americans, skip ABC's 9/11 miniseries
POSTED: 1:59 p.m. EDT, September 11, 2006

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." (Watch Bill Clinton and Harvey Keitel express concerns about accuracy -- 3:07)

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.

source: cnn.com


basically sunday night football crushed it...lol



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Truth is, Reagan was the first in a long line of presidents to screw the terror thing up. By pulling out of Beirut (after the barracks bombing), Reagan let the terrorists know that we can be hurt and when pushed back we might bend and break.

that said, and to agree with flyers that they all screwed up, let me add this:


Originally posted by dgtempe
Clinton is not "without blame" but to make a film like this one for the purpose of swaying those yet "undicided" and shifting the blame to an ex president is the end.
Yes, Clinton was too busy getting a BJ, Clinton, the perv, didnt react BECAUSE THE CIA LOOKED AT THE INTELLIGENCE AND DETERMINED CLINTON SHOULD NOT TAKE ACTION BASED ON THE INTELLIGENCE AT THE TIME.



if CIA intelligence determined that bin laden shouldn't be taken out, that he was not that much of a threat (never mind the concept of punishing him for past deeds), why did Clinton meet to discuss bin laden once a week (Clinton claims this)? If Bin Laden was not such an essential target, why did the cia, the fbi or any other agency even bother to announce the window of opportunity? In other words, why did they need to discuss not taking out bin laden if he wasn't that much of a threat? Does the federal gov't sit around targetting random people and then, once they are in the cross hairs they say "not a target but nice work boys, let's blow some more money on spying on non-threatening individuals"

Let's be honest. Bill Clinton's office screwed up. Bush's office screwed up. Go back in time and you will find at least one moment when any other president back to Reagan, had the opportunity to make a statement with regards to terrorism and they have all done the wrong thing at least once but to claim Clinton didn't miss the opportunity because the cia determined bin laden was deemed not a necessary target, even after weekly meetings about the guy seemed to indicate he was taken a hell of a lot more seriously than things like discretion with regards to sexual trysts with interns and other ugly women.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Truth is, Reagan was the first in a long line of presidents to screw the terror thing up.


I'd go back to Carter with that statement. As i said earlier .. there is plenty of blame to go around. Carter and Iran?? Massive mess up. His screw ups bolstered terrorists around the world.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If the government truly wants to find Bin Ladin all they have to do is ask Clinton where he is at. Im sure they will get the information if they give Clinton a truth syrum we all know how he loves to lie.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zman
'By a terrorist, sir.'

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden.'


Sorry, this seems to be an urban legend.

The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.)


www.snopes.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Depends on what you conclude is effective in dealing with such people. If you believe fire-bombing their families is effective you will in the coming decade have the opportunity to witness whether that is actually the case. I think faulting Reagan for not retaliating for the Beirut massacre probably disregards what the intel said at the time regarding stirring a hornet's nest. These crazy freaks were an embarrassing minority of the muslim world. Not retaliating was probably largely the wise move. The knee jerk reaction of Bush to strike at Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 911 led to them all having reason to support the freaks. Same with Israel bombing hell out of Lebanon to get at Hezbollah.

Just plain stupid.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
If the government truly wants to find Bin Ladin all they have to do is ask Clinton where he is at. Im sure they will get the information if they give Clinton a truth syrum we all know how he loves to lie.


Sorry, schweetheart....you must have meant Bush. Right?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
IT was a very good movie.

Roper



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
nope i meant just exactly whom i said Clinton...Never once when our country, our embassies, our ships, our military bases got bombed did he do anything...In fact i was so pissed during his adminstration because i felt we were getting our butts kicked in a war that he refused to recognize. When he did, he precalled and warned them way ahead of time, to get them out of the area. Now, I ask you what kind of president wants their country in trouble and refuses to see it. I thank Bush for not ignoring what happened. and had the balls that Clinton did not have. and stood up for our country. Had he not their would be more attacks like there was during the Clinton adminstration.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You're entitled.

However, if i had to choose either Clinton or Bush as the biggest liar, i'd have to go with







posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Id be in wonderland too, if I had to deal with the leftovers of the Clinton adminstration. My head would be every direction wondering what the H*** he did during his presidency. Besides, acting like a frat boy he did everything he could to slam this country to all leaders in the world. Bush, was just trying to catch up with putting door knobs back on the white house after the clintons left. Not to mention checking the hundreds of executed orders that Clinton put into effect including all Christains are terriost if and when our country comes under attack. Once again how could Clinton ignore the attacks to our embassies, our ships, our military, the world trade center back in 93, etc.... He even met with the Chinese wearing sweatpants while they were all dressed up. What president has ever disgraced America the way he did.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Shar,

Surely you dont mean to say that the best president we've ever had did so much to cause you such grief and hatred?

Do you feel this way solely because of the humm job? Ask yourself this; What has Bush done in 5 + years?
Supposedly he's kept his zipper zipped, (none of my business, i'm not married to him) however, the lying and atrocities commited by this lunatic far surpass those Clinton could even imagine.
I would take the college jock wannabe any day.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I totally disagree with you. Clinton was truly the worse president we ever had. Bush may or may not be the best or worse however, he dosnt get my country bombed. Clinton was the biggest joke ever. He did not care about our country only his agenda to get our country taken over. Wake up. Look at what time he spent in other countrys. He does not care about America... At least Bush does protect us period.

As far as clinton and his adultary, im so tired of everyone bringing that up. Thats between him, his wife and his god not me. However, I am upset cause he REFUSED to protect our people. No and, ifs, or buts about it. Clinton did not protect us. Why did Clinton constantly stop the CIA from taken Osama Bin Laden out? Why did Clinton tell them to find him and then stop them from KILLING Bin Laden? Why did Clinton tie the CIAs hands? Why did he precall and warned Bin Laden about the missles coming?

As far as what has Bush done for our country---your still alive right.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Shar]

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
If the government truly wants to find Bin Ladin all they have to do is ask Clinton where he is at. Im sure they will get the information if they give Clinton a truth syrum we all know how he loves to lie.



Shar
It must be the Bushs that your really talking about and mistakenly said Clintons, when talking about asking someone from the US where BinLaden is,...... after all the BinLadens and Bushs are "tight, Buds, two peas in a pod", as the Bushs are close friends with the BinLadens hell they've shared Christmas together
, BinLaden even sponsered an idea that George Jr thought up and lost their money in George"s "demwit scheme", which wasn't anything unusual for Dubya to run things into the ground
, just like he's doing with OUR Nation and our Troops
.

Oh yea and don't start that nonsence about "if it was a Democrat",................. because Republican or Democrat doesn't matter to me,............ I'd still say what I'm saying,........... "If the Shoe FITS,.......... wear it",
.

Clinton did his little dirt when he was in Office and Republicans started Impeachment proceedings against Clinton, which didn't pan-out as the Republicans had hoped it would (If I'm remembering correctly)
, BUT GW Bush ans Cheney started a war with LIES, have gotten Thousands on both sides killed FOR THE LIES, Wasn't on HIS watch when 9/11 happened,...... need I go on ...........

Now if a Democrat President had done all this lying and killing like Bush has ,........ I'd be on that Democrat's butt just as I am on GW Bush's.

This is MY HOME, MY NATION and it burns my hinny that the president of MY NATION has royally smooched -the-pooch from day 1


edited out a word


[edit on 12-9-2006 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Once again noooo. You guys are crazy to think that bush and laden are together lets see wheres your evidence? Christmas EVIDENCE now please? Its been proven that bush gave the CIA what they needed to find Laden and that Clinton tied thier hands. That is FACT! Who said anything about democrats not me. Stick with the Facts.

Im glad Bush is slamming our enemies in WAR. Whose side are you on Americans or the Middle East. Im for American... And Bush is protecting us from those who Killed us. I hope your not one of those who flew your flag five years ago when it was popular to do so. Cause today its not and your going with the crowd. I will fly my flag today as i have before 911 and after 911. I know my country and I stayed upset during Clintons 8 years cause he did nothing everytime we got attacked he just let them die in vein. At least Bush stands up for our country.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
Now if a Democrat President had done all this lying and killing like Bush has ,........ I'd be on that Democrat's butt just as I am on GW Bush's.


Nanna .. they ALL lie. It's politics. Some lie better than others. Kerry was a lousy liar. So was Al Gore. Clinton lied ... he did the 'wag the dog' thing ... he tossed cruise missiles at asprin factories and tents whenever Monica and he did the wild thing in the Oval Office (it must have got his testosterone flowing so much he HAD to blow up something
). They ALL do it.

Well ... except Carter. He probably didn't lie and he didn't kill a whole lot, but he was such a screw up that he layed the groundwork for future terrorism against the USA. (remember the Iranian Embassy and 'rescue' problems??)


That being said .. i didn't watch. Not for any political motivations, but for two reasons -

1 - I didn't care
2 - I didn't feel good.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join