ABC made a movie about what led to 9/11.  They aparrently think (for no reason whatsoever) that the Clinton admin. might have had some responsibility.  Na-Ah!  Their problem is they didn't get non-partisans like Jamie Gorelic and Richard Ben-Veneste to write and direct it.

The movie suggests that Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, Sandy Berger and the rest of those incredibly competent people might have really messed things up.

They also suggest that Clinton was obsessed with polls and his legacy and was terrified to do anything that may take a commitment. He was also busy getting impeached.  He did find the courage to strike back at a few empty tents during Monica's testimony.  

No way was Clinton offered OBL and declined because of legal technicalities.  Even if he is on tape admitting it.  No way did Al Quaeda grow into a massive terrorist organization during the 90s. In no way did Clinton embolden OBL by constantly avoiding any confrontation after a dozen attacks.  This was a criminal issue.  Janet Reno was putting a gun in Elian Gonzalez's face as a warning to OBL not to mess with us!  He was scared of us until Bush became Pres.  Like Hillary(the love of his life) says: "He was obsessed with Bin Laden".

Don't worry though.  ABC is sensoring itself due to massive political pressure.  The First Ammendment is over rated anyway!    

Janet Reno and both Clintons, for arresting that little illegal alien and sending him back to Castrolandia.

Indict them all for emboldening Muslims.  I'm not sure that's a word, but I know it's an impeachable offense.  Get their asses back so we can impeach them before Iraq disappears completely down the toilet!!!

You bloody hypocrite.

"The movie suggests that Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, Sandy Berger and the rest of those incredibly competent people might have really messed things up."

The problem is the movie invented events that never happened in order to claim these people really messed up.  For example, they invented a scene where the CIA had bin Laden surrounded and Berger refused to authorize an attack.  The reality is we had no CIA agents in Afghanistan, and the northern alliance was nowhere near the areas where bin Laden was living.

On Albright, they claimed that she warned the Pakistanis (and thus bin Laden) that cruise missiles were on the way.  Never happened.  The Pentagon warned Pakistan that the missiles about to fly over their country were not from India.  This was necessary to avoid kick-starting a Pakistan-India war.  It is unclear if any warning was given to bin Laden that missiles were on the way.

Also, Richard Clark, the counter-terrorism czar under Bush 1, Clinton and early Bush 2 (thus, not really partisan) says that the "Clinton too worried about Monica to handle it" theme is also wrong.  

And really, isn't this an indictment of the witchhunt mounted by the Republicans?  If this claim was true, it meant that the Republicans greatly endangered national securty to try and score political points in their partisan investigations.

"No way was Clinton offered OBL and declined because of legal technicalities."

Clinton wasn't offered bin Laden on a silver plate, according to the 9/11 comission.  Or are those all left-wing hacks?

"In no way did Clinton embolden OBL by constantly avoiding any confrontation after a dozen attacks."

Could you list some of the attacks Clinton did not respond to?  I mean, there's this list at snopes where Clinton did actually respond to al Queda's attacks, except for the Cole.  That investigation was not complete until Clinton left office, so you should be really upset with W that he emboldened bin Laden by not punishing him for the Cole attack.

Also, ABC has sent emails to their right-wing blogger screeners telling them that they're still gonna "get" Clinton.  The edits were minor, and there's really no way ABC could replace the completely biased and fabricated scenes at this late date.

I wish it was censored!  The content of the Reagan movie wasn't altered or censored. It was just moved to Showtime.  A fate far worse.

You're correct.  It's all lies.  We know that because the Clinton admin says so.  That's good enough for me.

I also believe that Sandy Berger accidentally stole classified documents by stuffing them in his socks becuase he was "messy".  That's what the Clinton admin. said and I buy it!  Just like I buy that Hollywood has decided to fabricate stories about Clinton out of thin air to soil their spotless record.  Hollywood hates the Clintons.

But, heck, if you really love America, you don't need no stinking facts, right?

Real America lovers don't care that those scenes about the Clinton admin are completely made up? Never mind that George Tenet was given standing orders (by Bill Clinton) to capture or kill Bin Laden and he never felt he really had that chance (At least that is what that damn 9/11 commission Bush appointed said ...stupid bastards!). Fuck the FACTS, MAN!!!!

Never mind that they seem to have left out the fact that the Clinton admin warned Bush about Bin Laden and he ignored it. Never mind that Bush received 52 separate memos warning him of these terrorist attacks -- yet he did not hold a single meeting on the subject. Never mind he was warned in an August 6th PDB that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike"...and yet he stayed on vacation (just like with Katrina)....ABC seems to have left these facts out of the film -- that's the damn LIBERAL MEDIA for ya!

Who needs facts? Real Americans just need to BELIEVE!! Facts shmacts! WMDs? B E L I E V E Children of GOD!!! FEMA & KATRINA -- just BELIEVE!!! TAX cuts for the ultra wealthy? Just believe and it will solve everything!!!

And we can all see how well it has worked out can't we bothers and sisters?

-- Modified on 9/7/2006 9:16:20 PM

then it's okay.

Tenet, isn't that the guy who said "Slam dunk" on Iraqi WMD?

He worked for Clinton too???

OMG!!!!! That GWB really looked ahead, did'nt he?

He's is such a GODDAMNMUTHERFUCKINLIAR! Plus he had to send this letter to ABC from his feaking sew-happy lawers! This PROVES he's lying again!

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_abc_obtained


-- Modified on 9/7/2006 10:30:23 PM

So much so, it might have actually overcome the "public figure" and "actual malice" threshholds for libel.  If Clinton demanded anything from ABC, it was on that basis.

Well Doc, as you might guess i'm waiting for that [IMHO] other, inevitable shoe to drop and tolearn of some less than flattering reference to Israel  and the Israelis in the flic, prompting YOUR favorite special interest group to swing into inevitable, and inevitably successful, action.

That way I can thank AIPAC as well as Allah.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

It seems to me the R's handled Fat Mike's Farenheit 911 much better than the D's are handling this. F911 was billed as a documentary, which is what liberals do, proclaim their propaganda is factual. The ABC thing says it is a dramatization, according to this morning's newspaper.(By the way is there a bigger fraud in the world than that pig Mich---, er, liberal icon Michael Moore?) And, does anyone care to declare that F-9/11 was not released in an effort to influence an election in 04? That it was just a coincidence? Anybody?

being a member in good standing of the RNC, not to mention being a fundraiser "pioneer" for the Bush regime.

Is not a crime if the lie is not relevant to the case.  

This part is the part you will always ignore.

much less for getting a blow job.

this is the part you guys always lie about.

Only liberals should be allowd to make movies.  They're the only ones that are "fair".

the difference between a movie that you have to pay to see (and don't forget that Disney-owned Miramax refused to release it and sold it off to another company) and a TV miniseries broadcast on public airwaves?

Michael Moore said that F 911 WAS intended to influence the election. ABC & Disney are denying that their made up account is. What is your point?

The director could have been Mel Gibson.

There's tons of ways that a lawyer can be disbarred without breaking the law.  Specificly, by violating the bar's ethics rules.

Apparnetly he's also a member of an evangelical group who's goal is to transform Hollywood "from the inside out".  Apparently, they think all sorts of problems will be solved if Hollywood was run by Evangelical Christians.

I like "embrazening" myself.  But it sounds like something related to BBQing.

lying to start a war is not.  Don't you know anything?

:sarcasm:

Disney/ABC has been infiltrated by those GOD DAMNED evangelcal republicans?

How else could they have snuck this thing through?

reread the black and white of what I wrote first.

sounds like brass-plating them.

contrary to popular opinion, most courts and lawyers are very short-tempered with people who are less than forthcoming.   Clinton's sea lawyering got him disbarred.

OTOH, most politicians are not in front of courts with a bar card on the line.  

My feeling toward Clinton is that we should hire a fucking Vegas chorus line if it guaranteed the improvements we got with him; that Oval Office BJs are immaterial to the governance of the country, and that he probably would have gotten away with it if he had butt-fucked Catherine Deneueve in the Rose Garden instead; but the problem with Democrats is that they have no ambition - they settle for fucking interns, when the Republicans can figure out ways to fuck the entire country.

Why are we excited about a guy who lied after election, when we turn around and elect (sort of) a guy that we KNOW is lying to us - eg in that Dubya knew that he was arrested for DUI, and knows that even if he can't remember where he was for his ANG drills, releasing his records would show.

So why are we surprised that all sorts of other prevarications show up in his administration?   Why are we surprised that we're in this FUCKING mess?

You wrote:

"one does not gets disbarred for NOT breaking the law, much less for getting a blow job".

Which is still not true.  Lawyers are most often disbarred for things which are not illegal.  Thus, they got disbarred while not breaking the law.

Since Clinton has never been convicted of perjury, he did not commit a crime, from a strictly legal perspective.

The main reason why it wasn't a crime is because the Judge screwed up.  When asked if he had 'sexual relations' with any other women, Clinton asked for a definition of 'sexual relations', the judge restricted it to only intercourse.  Thus, Clinton could truthfully say he never had 'sexual relations' with Monica while under oath.

Obviously this is a technicality, but it does indeed mean there was no perjury, hence there were no perjury charges and no crime.  However, the bar's ethics committee felt it was missleading.

"How else could they have snuck this thing through?"

Because the executives who approved the project probably didn't pay any attention to who was doing it or the script.  They just heard "9/11 docudrama" and "based on 9/11 comission report" and said "OK" and never checked back.

We can argue all we want about Moore's presentation during Farenheit 911, but it is factually accurate.  Obviously he presented those facts in a way that shows the Bush administration in a bad light, but the events themselves are truthful.

In the ABC case, they are claiming to be based on the 9/11 comission report, but contain scenes that are the complete opposite of what the 9/11 comission report says.  An example is the claim in the movie that the Clinton administration was too distracted by Moncia to deal with bin Laden.  The 9/11 report says that this was not the case.

As for dramatization, ABC is destroying that claim with their marketing.  Their marketing claims their docu-drama is drawn exclusively from the 9/11 report, and is a truthful representation of what is in that report.

only conservatives get to claim that ideas are either or both treason and emotionally damaging to their self-esteem.

And of course, all conservatives get psychrink licenses by operation of law; so Ann Coulter is not out of her mind when she diagnoses Democrats as fags.  I'm guessing she has personal experience here.

Foo, factually accurate? Factually accurate? Save some of the that loony-left-Jim-Jones-Kool-Aid for the other screwballs. Thank God you and yours are out in the cold, with zero influence anywhere but in your own squirrelly heads.

firm when all the controversy over Farenheit 9/11 started...oops, no they didn't. They dumped it. Never mind.

If it's so wrong, then post some things from F-911 that are factually inaccurate.

"Everything in it is wrong" is not proof.  I've listed a specific event from "Path to 9/11" that is factually inaccurate.  Your turn.

You put quotes around something I didn't say and intimate I said it. And you think I should get into a debate over what's true with you? I've seen how you deal with inconvenient facts already.

Uh.....OK?????

"You put quotes around something I didn't say"

I summarized your argument for you.

"Foo, factually accurate? Factually accurate?" does not work nearly as well in a sentence.  However, the meaning is that the film is grossly inaccurate.  Feel free to correct that interpretation of your statement.

"I've seen how you deal with inconvenient facts already."

Where?  You haven't provided any facts, convenient or not, for me to deal with on this subject.

I've got Google all primed and ready to go.  Start posting lies from Farenheight 911.  Something like the 'get a gun in the bank' scene from Bowling for Columbine.

-- Modified on 9/11/2006 9:21:43 PM