OK, I'm not sure which one of you put my email address out there for this, but dang it, I really don't appreciate getting this crap. I've actually received approximately 8 or 9 emails trying to get me to send a message to ABC President Bob Iger to stop them from showing the Path to 911 Documentary.. Damn it, I want to see it.
Below is what they are trying to get me to send in. Crikey, famous quote. leave me the fu-k alone and let me watch and make up my on friggin mind. What the heel are they afraid of, I might learn something.


YOUR COMMENT TO ABC

TO: Bob Iger, CEO of ABC's corporate parent, Disney
CC: (Your Representative)
FROM: (Your Name and Email)
SUBJECT: No partisan propaganda on 9/11
__________

Dear Mr. Iger,
(Your personal note)
"The Path to 9/11" is a partisan movie, written and produced by a right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.
The movie appears to be part of a coordinated push -- including speeches by President Bush and millions of dollars in advertising -- to exploit the five-year anniversary of 9/11 for political gain.
ABC must not air partisan propaganda on 9/11.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-09-2006).]

i actually agree with their statement.

i do hate all those e-mails they send out. i just delete them now.

Frankly, I'm about to send one to the guy telling him I want to see it. This is politics at it absolute worst. How about letting us make up our own minds. I really only know what I've seen on the news and read in the papers. Is something going to be announced that puts someone in a bad light, hopefully we'll learn something. Let the chips fall where they may fall.
Edited to add: The more I think about this, the madder it makes me. I didn't say a word when Michael Moore did his movie, WTF, I didn't accept what was said there as gospel, I doubt I'll accept what this documentary says as gospel. I don't know enough about it. BUt I assure you of this, they've tweaked my interest now!

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-09-2006).]

When the network did the movie of the week on Regan, with Nancy and astrologer, I don't recall the Republicans or Dems crying the blues over the inaccuracies of that movie to this extent.

Bill is worried about his legacy as president and wants no more negative press about his administration while he gets his hollywood cronies to rewrite history with only a positive slant. He is unhappy that a conservative wrote the script.

I had no plans to get a bowl of popcorn to watch this "docudrama".

Too bad you cannot get the moveon mail directed to a spam folder.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: When the network did the movie of the week on Regan, with Nancy and astrologer, I don't recall the Republicans or Dems crying the blues over the inaccuracies of that movie to this extent. Bill is worried about his legacy as president and wants no more negative press about his administration while he gets his hollywood cronies to rewrite history with only a positive slant. He is unhappy that a conservative wrote the script. I had no plans to get a bowl of popcorn to watch this "docudrama". Too bad you cannot get the moveon mail directed to a spam folder.

Then you have a selective memory. The Republicans bitched so loud that CBS PULLED THE MOVIE and never aired it.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Then you have a selective memory. The Republicans bitched so loud that CBS PULLED THE MOVIE and never aired it.

Then YOU have a selective memory. They ran it on Showtime.

Ed

I already sent one telling him he needs to show it.
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

[This message has been edited by t-bird1963 (edited 09-10-2006).]

According to CNN, Mr. Iger received a petition from some Democratic somebodies, can't remember who they said. Anyway, this petition supposedly had 200,000 signatures. Yeah Right, I sincerely doubt they had 200,000 signatures. 200,000 email addresses, maybe. Now I'm wondering if my email address is on that list. Apparently the show will go on but will now have some kind of disclaimer.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

You're both right. As an over the air netework, CBS has to worry about things like FCC licensing and fair standards that Showtime as a cable network does not. They have more flexibility on what they can show on cable. I have "the Reagans" on DVD and other than it just being a boring movie, I don't see the big deal. I'm sure that a lot of it isn't accurate. Big surprise. I'm also sure the movie tonight and tomorrow aren't going to be 100% accurate, but the hypocrisy is apparently evenly distributed among the right and the left since the same ones that were demanding the Reagans be shown under freedom of speech protections are now demanding the new movie be pulled. And vice versa. Oh well, time marches on...........

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by edhering: Then YOU have a selective memory. They ran it on Showtime. Ed

quote Originally posted by sostock: i actually agree with their statement.

I do too. I don't want to see "Partisan Propaganda" on TV. I have to endure commercials as it is why movies too? But not having seen the movie how do they know it IS? The writers and producers and cast are mostly Democrats. It's not as if Tom Selleck, Kelsey Grammer and Bo Derek are the stars. And it is not as if the 9/11 report is not the basis for the script. I'm still waiting for someone who's actually seen the movie to come out and say, "THIS SCENE DID NOT HAPPEN THIS WAY IN REAL LIFE."

And if historic accuracy their REAL concern, where was their rancor when the movie "The Reagans" was released? And I DID see that one. I can state for 100% certainty that it was partisan horseshit. With a cast of famously liberal actors playing the president and his wife how could we take the joke seriously?

The only one play partisan politics is clearly MoveOn.org

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Conn, once again believing what he wants to believe.

What do you mean, CBS pulled the movie didn't they? They released it on DVD later, but that's different. I fail to see how my post is anything other than plain truth. Republicans complained, and the movie was pulled. Now Democrats are complaining and the movie ISN'T being pulled. Where was their false information in my two sentences?

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 09-10-2006).]

I say what goes around comes around.

I default to freedom, and what the Democrats are doing is just disgusting, but not surprising. But I will give the Democrat butt lickers their dues and say that the Conservative Commenators and Politicans that requested the Reagan mini-series be pulled was completely wrong.

Revenge is bitter sweet, and Democrats will use revenage to the till.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I say what goes around comes around. I default to freedom, and what the Democrats are doing is just disgusting, but not surprising. But I will give the Democrat butt lickers their dues and say that the Conservative Commenators and Politicans that requested the Reagan mini-series be pulled was completely wrong. Revenge is bitter sweet, and Democrats will use revenage to the till.

What the democrats is doing is disgusting? I thought y'all despised what Michael Moore does and he uses peoples actual words at least when stuffing things into his personal version of reality box.

Let me ask you what your response would be if someone made a movie about an event you were involved in, had a character playing you saying things you did not say... actually the opposite of what you said because "it's a docudrama, not presented as a documentary"

I'd call it libel if it wasn't being used as satire, and this sure isn't satire. You must know that for most of the people watching this, it'll be 'fact' for the future. I think it's pretty sad that they have to put words opposite of what the actual people said in the mouths of their actors, and can see why the people effected are pissed off.

And did you people actually get emails from Moveon.org or are you just using them as a scapegoat?


Editted because I saw a piece where the people with false words attributted to them asked to have it editted and the producers refused.

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 09-10-2006).]

Unsolicited email = spam.

Did you authenticate/confirm the source?

quote Originally posted by JT6666: Unsolicited email = spam. Did you authenticate/confirm the source?

i gave the DNC some money..once..and made the mistake of giving them my e-mail address. i didn't realize i was going to get an e mail from them once a day for the rest of my life.

There is a link at the bottom of the page linked "unsubscribe." Its pretty simple, just click on it.
Or you could simply block unwanted email messages.
I WISH that was all I had to worry about.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: There is a link at the bottom of the page linked "unsubscribe." Its pretty simple, just click on it. Or you could simply block unwanted email messages. I WISH that was all I had to worry about.

i rarely check it. right now there are probably a few hundred msgs. i get so much spam that i've never tried to block each one. its really not an issue any more than regular junk mail is. and its not something that i worry about.

quote Originally posted by sostock: i gave the DNC some money..once..and made the mistake of giving them my e-mail address. i didn't realize i was going to get an e mail from them once a day for the rest of my life.

Let me assure you, I have never, I repeat NEVER given any money to any political party or campaign. These emails were totally unsolicited by me.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

The thing that is most funny... Moveon.org is one of the biggest groups that has to do just that.

------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurasic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top of every forum page...)

BUT, That is EXACTLY what was done in "The Reagans".

I don't remember what you're position was on that, Scott. I'd guess it was about like mine in that I wanted it to be portrayed accurately. I have the same opinion here.

I've seen Moore's movies and they are FAR from accurate. Having said that, though, I'll be the last one to call for his movies to be banned or not allowed to be shown. The truth will, eventually, win out.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: What the democrats is doing is disgusting? I thought y'all despised what Michael Moore does and he uses peoples actual words at least when stuffing things into his personal version of reality box. Let me ask you what your response would be if someone made a movie about an event you were involved in, had a character playing you saying things you did not say... actually the opposite of what you said because "it's a docudrama, not presented as a documentary" I'd call it libel if it wasn't being used as satire, and this sure isn't satire. You must know that for most of the people watching this, it'll be 'fact' for the future. I think it's pretty sad that they have to put words opposite of what the actual people said in the mouths of their actors, and can see why the people effected are pissed off. And did you people actually get emails from Moveon.org or are you just using them as a scapegoat? Editted because I saw a piece where the people with false words attributted to them asked to have it editted and the producers refused.

hee hee sorry. looks like i have blocked moveon. i haven't blocked these guys yet. only problem is this is one of the few things i agree with George W. on.

Dear Jeremy,
Social Security Privatization:
Here It Comes Again

President Bush and key Republican leaders are promising again to privatize Social Security if their party retains control of Congress in the upcoming elections.

Please sign our online Petition to Strength Social Security, urging all incumbents and candidates for Congress to oppose Social Security privatization.


Listen! You can hear the drumbeat coming from Republican leaders to privatize Social Security if their party retains control of Congress in the November elections:

* Last week, President Bush talked about overhauling Social Security and Medicare: "I'm going to continue to work with the Congress and call on the Congress to work with the administration to reform these programs."
* On June 27, Bush told the Manhattan Institute, "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year."
* That same month, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), who's likely to chair the powerful House Ways and Means Committee if Republicans retain control of the House, said overhauling Social Security should be the top congressional priority next year.
* In July, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared, "If I'm around in a leadership role come January, we're going to get serious about this."

Do your part to stop Social Security privatization. Click the link below to sign our petition to incumbents and candidates for Congress.

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity_c_now

The petition urges your members of Congress and candidates to strengthen Social Security, rather than privatize it, and to oppose cutting benefits, running up huge new debt or raising the retirement age to pay for privatization.

Last year, we dealt Bush his greatest domestic policy defeat by blocking his attempts to privatize Social Security--which would cut our benefits, place our retirement security at risk, run up massive federal deficits and possibly raise the retirement age. But now Bush and key Republican leaders are at it again.

This is a classic battle of working people taking on big-money interests. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security would make working families' retirement problems worse, not better. But it would give billions of dollars in privatized account management fees to rich Wall Street outfits that can afford high-priced lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

We beat the big-money lobbyists last year. Now we have to do it again. When candidates ask for our votes, we have the power to demand they keep the "security" in Social Security.

Click on the link below to sign the petition now:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity_c_now

In this election year, we have the power to tell candidates and members of Congress we expect them to strengthen Social Security, not destroy it through privatization. If they deserve our votes in November, they will.

Thank you for fighting to stop Social Security privatization--again.

Sincerely,

Working America, AFL-CIO
August 28, 2006

I watched the first half and to be honest, I don't know what the Clinton folks were worried about. Of course things can change in the second part tomorrow night, but I didn't think it portrayed them that poorly. In fact, if it's anything close to factual, I think George Tenent came off better than I had pictured it with his role.

Did the Clinton administration make mistakes? Sure. But we're looking at those mistakes with 20/20 hindsight and to be honest, I didn't see anything that any other administration might not have done just as poorly. The people are human beings and they're not infallible, we can't expect them to be perfect. There were so many failures at the lower levels. Many of the people were on the watch list and should have been kicked out long before they could attempt to do harm.

The only major thing that I think a more hawkish administration (republican or democrat) would have done was respond more forcefully to the attacks when they happened but, again, that's 20/20 hindsight as well.

I'm looking forward to the last half tomorrow night.

John Stricker

I haven't watched it... seems like a waste of time, but the complaint I heard voiced by those with the words put in their mouths were very specific. It wasn't that they changed the outcome, it's that they changed specific peoples roles having them say things they very much did not say. To them it appears they were turning the documentary into a slam on Clinton and specific people by adding senarios that didn't happen.

From the Seattle Times story:

"Among the scenes that the Clinton team said were fictional:

• Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have him 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 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 panel found no evidence that the Monica 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."

Scott,
Watched the first part tonight, accepted the premise that this was a movie and not a factual documentary. Now, having said that and having spent the majority of my adult life in the military both as enlisted man and as an officer, there is absolutely no way I'll ever believe that someone in the military told the Pakistannis we were launching missles through their airspace without a civilian in the chain of command authorizing that exchange of information. Someone in the military may have been blamed but that doesn't mean it actually happened that way. If so, someone would still be visiting Fort Leavenworth for the long course.
I am also sure that some freedoms have been taken by the writers and producers of this film, though I am not able to say exactly where that occurred and the players are covering their asses. I'm sure part 2 will hold more of the same.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-11-2006).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Scott, Watched the first part tonight, accepted the premise that this was a movie and not a factual documentary. Now, having said that and having spent the majority of my adult life in the military both as enlisted man and as an officer, there is absolutely no way I'll ever believe that someone in the military told the Pakistannis we were launching missles through their airspace without a civilian in the chain of command authorizing that exchange of information. Someone in the military may have been blamed but that doesn't mean it actually happened that way. If so, someone would still be visiting Fort Leavenworth for the long course. I am also sure that some freedoms have been taken by the writers and producers of this film, though I am not able to say exactly where that occurred and the players are covering their asses. I'm sure part 2 will hold more of the same.

I was in the army for over 7 years... but never had a civilian in my chain of command other than the president being at the top and I never recieved a direct order from him. But I didn't work traffic control or have to deal with laisons and the like, maybe there are civilians giving military orders at lower levels now. I was just enlisted and never got an order from or heard an order given by a civilian. Does that happen outside the movies?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I was in the army for over 7 years... but never had a civilian in my chain of command other than the president being at the top and I never recieved a direct order from him. But I didn't work traffic control or have to deal with laisons and the like, maybe there are civilians giving military orders at lower levels now. I was just enlisted and never got an order from or heard an order given by a civilian. Does that happen outside the movies?

Scott,
There was always a civilian in your and my chain of command:
U.S. Military Chain of Command
Running from the president to the secretary of defense to the commander of the combatant command, the chain of command for the United States military is spelled out by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. The secretaries of the military departments assign all forces under their jurisdiction to the unified and specific combatant commands to perform missions assigned by those commands.

Under the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958, the Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force were eliminated from the chain of "operational" command. Commanders of unified and specified commands now respond to the president and the secretary of defense through the joint chief of staff. The act redefined the functions of the military departments to those of essentially organizing, training, equipping and supporting combat forces for the unified and specified commands.

President of the United States
• Commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces.

Secretary of Defense
• Principal defense policy adviser to the president
• Appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate
• Military action taken by the president is passed through the secretary of defense

National Security Council
• Consists of the president, vice-president, secretary of state and secretary of defense
• Serves as the principal forum for considering national security issues requiring presidential decisions
• The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff serves as military adviser to the Council; the CIA is the intelligence adviser
• The secretary of the treasury, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, the assistant to the president for national security affairs, the assistant to the president for economic policy and the president's chief of staff are invited to all meetings.
• The attorney general and the director of the office of national drug control policy attend meetings pertaining to their jurisdiction. If appropriate, other officials are invited.

Secretaries of the Military Departments
• The secretary assigns all forces to combatant commands except those assigned to recruit, organize, supply, equip, train, service, mobilize, administer and maintain their respective forces.
• Secretaries are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [CJCS]
• The chairman is the principal military adviser to the president, secretary of defense and National Security Council.
• In carrying out these duties the chairman will consult and seek advice from the other service chiefs and combatant commanders as necessary.
• The chairman is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term

The Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Comprised of representatives of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
• They have no executive authority to command combatant forces.
• Each of the chiefs is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Unified and Specified Operations
• "Unified Commands" consist of elements from two or more services placed under a single commander who exercises operational control over the forces assigned to him.
• Service forces may be organized under subordinate joint commands.
• Specified commands have a broad continuing mission and are normally composed of forces primarily from one service. Within these unified and specified organizations, each military department (Army, Navy and Air Force) retains responsibility for administration and logistical support of its assigned forces under the directive authority of the CINC.

Combined Operations
• Conducted by forces of two or more nations, acting together toward the same objective.
• American forces participating in combined operations are subject to command arrangements and authorities established by international agreement between the participating nations.
• There are two types of combined operations: operations in which an alliance exists, characterized by formal agreements and procedures for coordination between forces, and operations in which a coalition exists with forces of nations friendly to the immediate undertaking. Coalition missions operate without prior formal agreements or procedures for coordination and are the most challenging. They require, at a minimum, require the support of an extensive liaison structure.

Though you and I may never have actually received orders directly from a civilian, the chain is very much in effect. The US military is the action arm of our civilian government.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Though you and I may never have actually received orders directly from a civilian, the chain is very much in effect. The US military is the action arm of our civilian government.

Thanks for the reply... I suspect it's gotten even more complex since the cold war ended (I was out before the fall of the Soviet Union).

I'll try to paraphrase a quote from a book I read as a teen, " The Superwarriors: The fantastic weapons of the Pentagon".

Some General, ' The military is there to fix things when the civilians screw it up beyond repair.'

Or... "War is the continuation of policy(politics) by other means." - Karl von Clausewitz

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: There is a link at the bottom of the page linked "unsubscribe." Its pretty simple, just click on it.

I have some ocean front property in Arizona.
Does that actually work? Who are the internet police? What punishment do they get?

quote Originally posted by sostock: i gave the DNC some money..once..and made the mistake of giving them my e-mail address. i didn't realize i was going to get an e mail from them once a day for the rest of my life.

Oh you are a cheapskate. Only one e-mail a day

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I haven't watched it... seems like a waste of time, but the complaint I heard voiced by those with the words put in their mouths were very specific. It wasn't that they changed the outcome, it's that they changed specific peoples roles having them say things they very much did not say. To them it appears they were turning the documentary into a slam on Clinton and specific people by adding senarios that didn't happen.

IIRC you watched Farenheit 9/11, was it also a waste of time? This is a lot more relevant than Moore's movie is. As I said, I DID watch the first part and I don't see it as a slam on Clinton at all, perhaps you should watch it before you judge it. After all, I've set through the Michael Moore Movies.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: From the Seattle Times story: "Among the scenes that the Clinton team said were fictional: • Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have him 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 Tenet decided the plan would not work.

Berger is one person that, IMHO, really did screw a lot of things up. Note how he chose his words. "neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden". That even agrees with the movie. The question is..........did they APPROVE, GIVE PERMISSION FOR a mission of that type??? He's not saying that.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: • 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."

I don't get this. Tenent was a Clinton appointee. Albright (or whoever it really was) was also a political appointee. They're bent out of shape because there was some disagreement as to how things went? Get real. There are disagreements every day in every administration. If this is what it takes to tarnish Clinton's legacy then he needs to grow a thicker skin. How about in "The Reagans" putting a line in there "They that live in sin shall die in sin," when he is supposedly being begged to help those with AIDS. It was a scene with just he and Nancy in the room. She says it never happened, that he never said that. Most everyone that knew him said it's completely out of character for him. Is that OK Scott?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: 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.

I believe this wasn't Albright. I think she'd have been informed sometime after the cruise missiles were flying, but I could be wrong on that. I would suspect that a "senior military official" was probably civilian in DOD, I don't believe anyone in uniform would have compromised the mission.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: • "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 panel found no evidence that the Monica 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."

DUH. Plausible deniability. Been going on since the CIA began. It's interesing that whoever wrote the piece you copied here, Scott, brought up Monica Lewinsky. You can say it had no role, but it did. Not her directly, but the distractions. I don't think a lot of people were at the top of their game at that time, and understandably so, but to say it had nothing to do with anything is simply naive. Watch the show, decide for yourself.

John Stricker

I got to thinking about this statement, "Monica Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike." I never cared for the Clinton's but as I remember the situation, his staff was claiming that he was able to "compartmentalize" the different situations and roles he played during his presidency. Having been in leadership positions most of my adult life, I can relate to this compartmentalization. Separating issues to focus on what needs to be addressed. I would sincerely hope that this particular White House Administration had their act together. I'd hate to think that Mr. Clinton's focus was on Monica instead of Bin Laden. It's basic leadership, very disconserting if you really think about it.
BTW, I hadn't thought about that till it was brought up in this thread.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's paid for with the blood and dreams of those that have gone before us.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: What do you mean, CBS pulled the movie didn't they? They released it on DVD later, but that's different. I fail to see how my post is anything other than plain truth. Republicans complained, and the movie was pulled. Now Democrats are complaining and the movie ISN'T being pulled. Where was their false information in my two sentences?

But what are they complaining about?

That is the issue. The movie the Reagans was a 2 hour pasting of Ronald Reagan. Pure and simple.

In the first part of the movie last night Bill Clinton's name never even came up until 58 minutes into the movie when two FBI guys were talking about a plot to assassinate the president. Nothing malicious in that is there? 75 minutes in we see a picture of clinton in the background on TV for about 2 seconds. Oooohhh, get the lawyers to work! and 1 hour and 53 minutes into the movie is the FIRST instance where we see the president even utter a single word and it's a copy of an interview he did so it is word for word accurate. The facts of the movie, so far as I can see, are dead on. I still haven't seen part two but the failure to take advantage of opportunities to kill Bin Laden are factual, nothing new there. The failure of the intelligence organizations to work together are real, the capture of Ramzi Usef and the war between Bin Laden and Moussad are all accurate. What is inaccurate so far? You tell me.

This is nothing like the Reagan movie which was totally fictionalized and with the exception of a handful of made-up characters to add drama to certain revelations the facts of this movie are dead on so far.

Stop making this out to be the same thing.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I still haven't seen part two but the failure to take advantage of opportunities to kill Bin Laden are factual, nothing new there. The failure of the intelligence organizations to work together are real, the capture of Ramzi Usef and the war between Bin Laden and Moussad are all accurate. What is inaccurate so far? You tell me.

What I find truely amazing is that Clinton was quoted as saying that they couldn't capture Bin Laden because he hadn't broken any laws, yet somehow Bush is to blame for ignoring the Clinton administration's assessment of him as a threat? I wish they'd get their story straight, 'cause I'm getting dizzy.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What I find truely amazing is that Clinton was quoted as saying that they couldn't capture Bin Laden because he hadn't broken any laws, yet somehow Bush is to blame for ignoring the Clinton administration's assessment of him as a threat? I wish they'd get their story straight, 'cause I'm getting dizzy.

Bill Clinton did good because he couldn't move against bin Laden until after he broke the law.

George W. Bush did bad because he didn't move against bin Laden BEFORE he broke the law.

Simple, if you're a Democrat.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Bill Clinton did good because he couldn't move against bin Laden until after he broke the law. George W. Bush did bad because he didn't move against bin Laden BEFORE he broke the law. Simple, if you're a Democrat.

its good to see that we can set aside our political differences for one day.

tisk tisk.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: In the first part of the movie last night Bill Clinton's name never even came up until 58 minutes into the movie when two FBI guys were talking about a plot to assassinate the president. Nothing malicious in that is there? 75 minutes in we see a picture of clinton in the background on TV for about 2 seconds. Oooohhh, get the lawyers to work! and 1 hour and 53 minutes into the movie is the FIRST instance ......bla, bla, bla.... .

Only Toddster keeps a stopwatch and the RNC talking points in his hand while watching a TV movie.
Unless he just pasted this from one of those "fair and balanced" websites.
I don't even waste my time watching TV movies.
Why? They always suck, thats why.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 09-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Only Toddster keeps a stopwatch and the RNC talking points in his hand while watching a TV movie.

It's not while watching a movie. It's 24/7. Honest to God i have never encountered someone as programmed as this guy. He goes all in for every rnc position and holds on to it like grim death no matter what reality manages to slip in.

It really is something to watch. After a while you just say "wow"

quote Originally posted by jstricker: IIRC you watched Farenheit 9/11, was it also a waste of time? This is a lot more relevant than Moore's movie is. As I said, I DID watch the first part and I don't see it as a slam on Clinton at all, perhaps you should watch it before you judge it. After all, I've set through the Michael Moore Movies. John Stricker

Just watched it since it was on sale for $7 at my favorite commie's used music and video store (really... he's a communist/hippie that lived the 60's as a music producer in the Bay area.) Since Toddster kept accusing me of being married to the guy I figured I'd watch the movie. Pretty much a waste of time, since I didn't make any choices last election based on any movies, but it was a well made film. It brought me up to date on his tactics vs. the rights tactics, I do find he was more polite in his finger pointing.

I see this 9/11 movie as a complete waste, since it is not presented as a documentary, it's not presenting an expose although some may take it that way and it's not going to change what happened and I seriously doubt it'll present any solutions to keep it from happening again. I don't believe it's presented as anything but a made for tv movie going back over what we've all seen (well, those of us paying attention), and somehow trying to make it entertaining. Since you've watched it, is it just ripping scabs off or is it attempting to present any future solutions?

I don't get why anyone would want to watch a ficticious movie about the attacks at this point. Maybe in 10 years... maybe 20... but unlike WW2 movies and the sort where the public didn't get to see what happened live as it happened and share in the actual trauma of the event, hardly any american wasn't bombarded with the real event ad nauseum in case they didn't catch it live on the morning news. We ALL lived the real thing, how the hell can a movie top that. If you want to be shell shocked again, it's all on the web, the real thing... with real people dying over and over for your viewing pleasure. I for one, don't need a bunch of actors re enacting something that real, that fresh. Flight 93 made sense in a way because we didn't hear those calls as they happened, we didn't see the airplane crash, the peoples actions. At the towers we saw it all, the bodies dropping, the people screaming, the impacts, the collapse, the deaths of the firefighters, the police, the civilians. I saw firefighters who I considered comrades ( I was a volunteer in Terryville FD, NY in the early 80's and did some training with one of the great NYFD chiefs), people who I consider heros EVERYDAY doing what they do and KNEW the instant the towers started falling that hundreds of them were dead. I do NOT want to see people play acting that, one of the most amazing pieces of journalism ever was taken that day by the crew doing the documentary on the rookie fire fighter. Nothing can ever top that for defining heros or the reality of the event, and for me I don't think anything will ever rock me to the core as badly either.

What I did watch some of was the Tom Brokaw hosting a question and interview session. I've been sick with multiple ear/sinus/kidney infections and trying to avoid strep since my kid had that at the same time, so I've been floating in and out of conciousness since about last wednesday. Today was my first day back working (and what an interesting day... complete suspension upgrade on a new twin turbo GTO), and I am starting to get my hearing back this evening, I was working almost completely deaf today. So, I didn't see the whole thing and may have hallucinated parts and I know I've responded in a rather nasty tone to certain people here... but, what I got out of that was that here we are, 5 years later and those making the decisions are still deflecting questions on what went wrong and what to do about it with partisan slams. To every "Some would say we haven't balanced liberty and security (hey that was the topic... one of my favorites) in the aftermath as shown by your decision to do blank, how do you respond and do you think we can do better?", the person being questioned would deflect into some speech about how "The other guys would have screwed it up worse" or "If we spend more time, more money doing the same, it'll be alright eventually... really, you just have to trust us and we can't let those other guys get into power or they'll ruin everything."

Scott,

First off, hope you're feeling better. Nothing makes me more miserable than a sinus infection.

While the movie didn't claim to be a documentary, it WAS based almost entirely on the 9/11 commission reports and other first hand accounts. So to be worthy of your watching it now, something has to be a complete, full fledged, 100% accurate documentary?

Flight 93 was OK because "we didn't hear those calls as they happened, we didn't see the airplane crash, the peoples actions"? So you're saying you already KNEW about the events leading up to 9/11? The opportunities we missed? The mistakes we made? You really should have watched the movie, Scott.

FWIW, I think the Bush administration came off worse in the movie than the Clinton administration did. The only real Clinton "person" I really wanted to punch in the mouth was the ambassador to Yemen and, if that particular scene is accurate, if I ever meet her IRL, I still might. Keep in mind, though, that's not even a "Clinton" thing. For as long as we've been a nation ambassador appointments have been political payback on both sides of the aisle, this just happened to be a "female dog" (since I can't say the real word I'm thinking).

To answer your question, though, I can't say it presented solutions as much as it did really expose HOW the intelligence community failed. The scene with the CIA agent in the room with the FBI agent giving them pictures to SHARE information, but refusing to name who the people are even though they know is priceless in how things DIDN'T work. They also painted O'Neil as kind of being drummed out for a "minor" mistake, but to be honest losing a briefcase filled with classified documents for several hours (even though it was found) is a major violation of protocol and he SHOULD have been severely disciplined. It did make the case to show how difficult it is to get a FISA warrant. They had the guy, they had his laptop, they knew he was involved, and couldn't get one.

You complain that it's not accurate, and I don't think that's really fair. For instance, if one of Albright's undersecretary's says something in one part, and another says something in another part, and then, later, in the movie, ALL of that dialogue is said by Albright just to convey positively that it's coming from the State Department and from the top, is that inaccurate to the point that it has changed the meaning? I'm sure that Ms. Albright wouldn't like that, because "SHE" didn't say the things, but has it really changed the meaning when reflecting what happened? I don't think so, but I'm open to listening to you tell me how it did.

I was, to be honest, impressed with a LOT of the Clinton people. Dick Clark came off very well, assuming his character was portrayed accurately. George Tenet also seemed capable and at first, trying to actually work with people but later, being blamed for everything so he got kind of vindictive and didn't want to have anything to do with ANY other agency. I honestly did NOT see the movie trying to place blame, but rather trying to say "look, this is what happened, this is where problems were, this is why we didn't get things done like we needed to, and it spanned multiple administrations".

You should have watched it. I did not watch the last 20 minutes. I guess in a way, I agree with you on that part. Once events caught up to 9/11 I know what happened and, besides, my mom passed away on 9/12/01, just after midnite. I watched 9/11 unfold from a hospital waiting room waiting for my mom to die and it's hard for me to disassociate the two. I honestly don't know how people that actually lost loved ones in the Towers, Pentagon, or on Flight 93 can deal with this publicity and the constant reminder of the event. But I learned a lot in how poorly we dealt with the threat, how we didn't take OBL seriously until that time, and how our agencies didn't cooperate. (We all hear they don't share information, this shows you exactly HOW they fail at that).

To completely dismiss the movie as "fictitious" is unfair, IMHO. It may not have a cast of 10,000 and combined some personalities, but it's not a made up story either. I believe the producers and writers tried their best to keep things accurate, probably more accurate than any Michael Moore movie because I really didn't see any sign of them trying to do a hatchet job on anyone. Can you say that about any Michael Moore movie?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Just watched it since it was on sale for $7 at my favorite commie's used music and video store (really... he's a communist/hippie that lived the 60's as a music producer in the Bay area.) Since Toddster kept accusing me of being married to the guy I figured I'd watch the movie. Pretty much a waste of time, since I didn't make any choices last election based on any movies, but it was a well made film. It brought me up to date on his tactics vs. the rights tactics, I do find he was more polite in his finger pointing. I see this 9/11 movie as a complete waste, since it is not presented as a documentary, it's not presenting an expose although some may take it that way and it's not going to change what happened and I seriously doubt it'll present any solutions to keep it from happening again. I don't believe it's presented as anything but a made for tv movie going back over what we've all seen (well, those of us paying attention), and somehow trying to make it entertaining. Since you've watched it, is it just ripping scabs off or is it attempting to present any future solutions? I don't get why anyone would want to watch a ficticious movie about the attacks at this point. Maybe in 10 years... maybe 20... but unlike WW2 movies and the sort where the public didn't get to see what happened live as it happened and share in the actual trauma of the event, hardly any american wasn't bombarded with the real event ad nauseum in case they didn't catch it live on the morning news. We ALL lived the real thing, how the hell can a movie top that. If you want to be shell shocked again, it's all on the web, the real thing... with real people dying over and over for your viewing pleasure. I for one, don't need a bunch of actors re enacting something that real, that fresh. Flight 93 made sense in a way because we didn't hear those calls as they happened, we didn't see the airplane crash, the peoples actions. At the towers we saw it all, the bodies dropping, the people screaming, the impacts, the collapse, the deaths of the firefighters, the police, the civilians. I saw firefighters who I considered comrades ( I was a volunteer in Terryville FD, NY in the early 80's and did some training with one of the great NYFD chiefs), people who I consider heros EVERYDAY doing what they do and KNEW the instant the towers started falling that hundreds of them were dead. I do NOT want to see people play acting that, one of the most amazing pieces of journalism ever was taken that day by the crew doing the documentary on the rookie fire fighter. Nothing can ever top that for defining heros or the reality of the event, and for me I don't think anything will ever rock me to the core as badly either. What I did watch some of was the Tom Brokaw hosting a question and interview session. I've been sick with multiple ear/sinus/kidney infections and trying to avoid strep since my kid had that at the same time, so I've been floating in and out of conciousness since about last wednesday. Today was my first day back working (and what an interesting day... complete suspension upgrade on a new twin turbo GTO), and I am starting to get my hearing back this evening, I was working almost completely deaf today. So, I didn't see the whole thing and may have hallucinated parts and I know I've responded in a rather nasty tone to certain people here... but, what I got out of that was that here we are, 5 years later and those making the decisions are still deflecting questions on what went wrong and what to do about it with partisan slams. To every "Some would say we haven't balanced liberty and security (hey that was the topic... one of my favorites) in the aftermath as shown by your decision to do blank, how do you respond and do you think we can do better?", the person being questioned would deflect into some speech about how "The other guys would have screwed it up worse" or "If we spend more time, more money doing the same, it'll be alright eventually... really, you just have to trust us and we can't let those other guys get into power or they'll ruin everything."