|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,590 Likes: 88
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,590 Likes: 88 |
Top Scores This Week
# Username Score Comment Time Length
#1 PJP 243 cutiequake Champion!
No Comment
12:22am Sep 11 72 secs
#2 PJP 234 No Comment
12:27am Sep 11 72 secs
#3 PJP 232 No Comment
12:24am Sep 11 72 secs
#4 PJP 222 No Comment
12:28am Sep 11 75 secs
#5 PJP 212 No Comment
12:23am Sep 11 73 secs
#6 PJP 165 No Comment
12:20am Sep 11 70 secs
#7 PJP 146 No Comment
12:25am Sep 11 59 secs
#8 PJP 117 No Comment
12:21am Sep 11 61 secs
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I watched some of it, but wasn't able to catch the whole thing. What I saw was pretty good. And ABC did something during the show which I thought was fair: ABC gave in to Clinton's demand for a disclaimer stating that the film was a "dramatization" and "not a documentary." The disclaimer, shown three times, admitted the film contained "fictionalized scenes" and composite characters. Be nice if they did that with more "historical event" movies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
True, MEM, you did criticize the Clintons, Schumer, Reid, etc.
However, at the same time you are agreeing with them that the movie should be edited and/or cancelled. That's what I meant by support.
I believe if a network advertises & promotes something like Path to 9/11 as a docudrama & based on the 9/11 report, they should be held to that. It's a case of false advertising.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
ABC 9/11 film ties documentary rerun
An expensive and highly-publicized September 11 ABC "docudrama" was soundly defeated in overnight Nielsen ratings by Sunday Night Football, RAW STORY has learned.
Early indications are that the "miniseries event" actually tied a rerun of a documentary on the same subject, and barely edged out the eighteenth season premiere of The Simpsons.
...
No surpise. It was choppy & jumped all over the place. I suppose I was expecting to get angry watching this but instead I was bored.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I suppose I was expecting to get angry watching this...
No surprise there.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I believe if a network advertises & promotes something like Path to 9/11 as a docudrama & based on the 9/11 report, they should be held to that. It's a case of false advertising.
Okay, then how do you feel about, say, CBS advertising something as a National Guard memo about George Bush that turned out to be a forgery? Should the President be able to sue CBS for false advertising? Should viewers?
And how "fictionalized" does the film have to be to make it "false advertising"?
For example, tonight I heard an interview with the producer of the Oliver Stone "9/11" movie. He told a story about how they cast one of the secondary characters as a white man and didn't find out until later that he was an African American. Should Stone's movie be subject to a lawsuit for false advertising?
And, of course, there's the whole Michael Moore question. Who should get to sue him for false advertising?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I believe if a network advertises & promotes something like Path to 9/11 as a docudrama & based on the 9/11 report, they should be held to that. It's a case of false advertising.
Okay, then how do you feel about, say, CBS advertising something as a National Guard memo about George Bush that turned out to be a forgery? Should the President be able to sue CBS for false advertising? Should viewers?
It's one thing being fooled & another knowingly promoting something that has fictionalized scenes directly contradicting what they were touting it being based on.
Quote:
And how "fictionalized" does the film have to be to make it "false advertising"?
For example, tonight I heard an interview with the producer of the Oliver Stone "9/11" movie. He told a story about how they cast one of the secondary characters as a white man and didn't find out until later that he was an African American. Should Stone's movie be subject to a lawsuit for false advertising?
The Stone thing sounds minor. On the other hand Path had major scenes fictionalized while others contradict the findings of the 9/11 commision. I'm not or haven't advocated that ABC should be sued BTW.
Quote:
And, of course, there's the whole Michael Moore question. Who should get to sue him for false advertising?
Again I'm not advocating to sue ABC. There is a difference between asking & pressuring a network like ABC to do the right thing as opposed to threatning legal action. They'll get a letter from me expressing my dissapointment over their false promotion but no threats of legal action.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
You said they should be "held" to "a case of false advertising". That implied some sort of sanction or lawsuit. Also, some members of the Senate, as discussed, threatened ABC's broadcast license. You have previously stated that you thought that was wrong.
Therefore, if not a lawsuit,or license revocation, how do you think ABC and, presumably, Michael Moore should be held liable for false advertising?
As for CBS and the forged National Guard memo, you think that CBS didn't know. Some have argued otherwise. But even if they didn't know, a good case could be made that they were negligent in not checking their sources better.
Are you saying that negligently putting false information on THE NEWS is somehow better than intentionally putting fictionalized scenes in a SCRIPTED MOVIE?
Also, you keep putting out the theory that there were major errors in this film. You contrast those errors to errors in other historial work.
However, the ABC movie was primarily about ten or more years of failure in dealing with Bin Laden. It attacked both Bush and Clinton administrations. In that context, what makes some ficationalized scenes that, in fact, illustrate those failures, more egregious than fictionalized scenes in other history based movies?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
It's one thing being fooled & another knowingly promoting something that has fictionalized scenes directly contradicting what they were touting it being based on.
From what I've heard the fictional scenes are simply composit scenes ro rely on composit characters, but nothing that acctually contradicts what happened. Could you specify a scene that acctually defies the facts?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
I agree. If you're going to tell this story, make it accurate. From the bit I watched tonight it seems-counter to the 9/11 commission testimony-that Bush wanted to respond swiftly to the "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S." but was thwarted by the CIA.
Also, they mention Clinton's blow jobs but not the fact that Bush took a record number of vacation days in the 7 months between being sworn in and 9/11.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
I agree. If you're going to tell this story, make it accurate. From the bit I watched tonight it seems-counter to the 9/11 commission testimony-that Bush wanted to respond swiftly to the "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S." but was thwarted by the CIA.
Also, they mention Clinton's blow jobs but not the fact that Bush took a record number of vacation days in the 7 months between being sworn in and 9/11.
So your problem isn't so much a matter of teh facts presented, but rather that certain facts were ommited?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
I agree. If you're going to tell this story, make it accurate. From the bit I watched tonight it seems-counter to the 9/11 commission testimony-that Bush wanted to respond swiftly to the "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S." but was thwarted by the CIA.
Also, they mention Clinton's blow jobs but not the fact that Bush took a record number of vacation days in the 7 months between being sworn in and 9/11.
So your problem isn't so much a matter of teh facts presented, but rather that certain facts were ommited?
just the facts, maam.
i'm too much of a buff of true crime and investigations stories to have any tolerance for lies about murders.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
I agree. If you're going to tell this story, make it accurate. From the bit I watched tonight it seems-counter to the 9/11 commission testimony-that Bush wanted to respond swiftly to the "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S." but was thwarted by the CIA.
Also, they mention Clinton's blow jobs but not the fact that Bush took a record number of vacation days in the 7 months between being sworn in and 9/11.
So your problem isn't so much a matter of teh facts presented, but rather that certain facts were ommited?
just the facts, maam.
i'm too much of a buff of true crime and investigations stories to have any tolerance for lies about murders.
What lies were presented in the movie?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
What lies were presented in the movie?
Thanks for the lead in
For some reason the opening tease for the show is included, so go to about 2 minutes in for some very interesting dealings with this movie.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
When did they advertise it as anything but a dramatization?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I guess the difference between us was I was pressing for a less fictionalized Path. If the network had advertised it as a dramitization to begin with I wouldn't have had much objection to it other than that it was in bad taste like the Reagens.
When did they advertise it as anything but a dramatization?
It was being touted as a docudrama right up until they aired. All the promotional stuff I saw highlighted that it was based upon the 9/11 report.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I thought a "docudrama" mean "dramatization." Otherwise it would be a "documentary" right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I thought a "docudrama" mean "dramatization." Otherwise it would be a "documentary" right?
I believe their are recognized individual chategories. The Amytivle Horror like the Path to 9/11 could be called a dramitization but probably not a docudrama as I understand the categories.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2006-09-12 3:59 PM.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I doubt there are rigously enforced guidelines but I thought a docudrama involved the use of both actors and actual archival footage, which this film did.
Personally, I think any movie that isn't an actual documentary should be called a dramatization, and docudrama should be reserved for works of utter fiction that look like documentaries (like "Zelig").
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
I skipped the Bush part last night but it sounds like they played as I figured they would. Where the mini used every opportunity to make Clinton look bad it ... Quote:
09.12.2006
"Path To 9/11" Tough On Bush Administration? Not By A Long Shot.
Like most people, I hadn't seen ABC's hotly contested "Path To 9/11" before it aired last night and Sunday (well, like most people who were featured inaccurately in the movie and had requested copies, and like most people who weren't right-wing bloggers and columnists). The information about its contents was documented extensively in a number of places, so I was well aware of the factual anomalies and flat-out fictionalizations relating to Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, and Bill Clinton. It was also widely reported that hey, the documentary was tough on the Bush administration, too.
After watching part two last night, however, I now know that that was not the case. On the contrary, barely two minutes into the final hour following President Bush's speech and the most jaw-dropping bit of spin I've ever seen occurred: They presented the now-infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." briefing of August 6, 2001 as being a galvanizing force for Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and the Bush administration, who all instantly recognized its significance. Literally, my jaw dropped.
Here's what happened on the screen: Wide on Condi in her office, reading. Foreboding music in background. She sees the title of the report: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." Her brow furrows. She flips pages. The music gets more urgent. Intercut, we see a chopper move in Afghanistan. Time is of the essence. It's urgent. As Condi flips, we see what she sees: Ramzi Yousef. "Bring the figthing to America." We know she knows that. A few scenes later, she chairs a Situation Room meeting on September 4, 2001. She begins, no nonsense: "The president is tired of swatting flies. He believes al Qaeda to be a real threat, and he want to consider real action." She goes on to ask if the Predator is ready to strike, all business. George Tenet seems not to know, and seems lukewarm about the idea of killing Bin Laden. Rice is coolly for it, and says that it's legal. After all, she read the memo.
In reality, this is NOT what happened. At the 9/11 Commission hearings, Rice testified that the August 6, 2001 briefing was a "historical document" and not considered a "warning" : "This was not a 'threat report... [it] "did not warn of any coming attack inside the United States." Contrary to Bush being "tired of swatting flies," he was out in Crawford doing just that as he cleared some brush on vacation, ignoring the warnings he'd received and saying that attack was not considered "imminent."
...
What source did the conservative writer use for that one?
The Blog
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
do you disagree that Clinton could have assasinated bin laden multiple times but chose not to so he wouldn't suffer in his beloved polls.
Not sure how that would have hurt Clinton in the polls. I'm sure some people in the "I hate Clinton" club would have been demanding that Ken Starr get on that right away but the more average citizen would have cheered if Clinton had succeeded in assasinating Bin Laden.
The same way Somalia hurt Clinton in 1993, following the fiasco in Mogadishu, where Clinton had not deployed adequate backup for our forces in Somalia, if they were actually fired upon, and they were.
The same way a bungled military operation hurt Carter in 1980, a plan to clandestinely rescue the 52 Iranian hostages, where the helicopters crashed, and the operation had to be humiliatingly aborted.
Any deployment of troops is pretty much guaranteed to lower a President's popular opinion poll numbers, no matter how good or bad the war goes, and especially as casualties mount and the war goes on. I think Desert Storm was the one exception, because it was over so quickly, with barely 100 casualties. (But remember that this could have gone another way. The military ordered about 8000 body bags, far more casualties were expected byu the experts)
Which is why Clinton at every turn did the easy thing, bombing Sudan and Afghanistan after the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, bombing Serbia and Kosovo in 1999, making a posture of military toughness, without deploying troops to do the job right. And not even responding to the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen in October 2000.
Which I think the 2-part Road To 9-11 captures pretty well.
I was surprised at how sophisticated it was, for a TV movie. And how well it encapsulated roughly 10 years of complicated events.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Since the Cole happened on the tail end of Clinton's term he was limited on his options for a response. Especially looking back in hindsight, we can agree he should have done something but Bush also left it untouched too.
I don't agree with you about the idea that Clinton took the easy way at every turn. In the wiretap thread in the politics forum I've shown where Republicans in the House had stripped his anti-terroism bill that he pushed for.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40 |
MEM, I've already acknowledged in many topics that Bush also shares blame for not reacting to the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen. But the simple fact is that Clinton was still President during the three critical months after the Cole bombing, where a response was most needed.
Clinton waived action to the Cole bombing, to pursue a later-proven-ineffective Middle East peace plan. Waiving retaliation against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Clark, and other Clinton advisors.
And while the Road to 9-11 drama doesn't portray these events verbatim as the conversations occurred in the Oval Office, they accurately depict the basic events.
Regarduing your second point about the bad old Republicans shooting down an anti-terrorism bill that Clinton allegedly pursued, that would have made the nation safe if passed:
Clinton did virtually nothing to secure the nation after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Clinton deployed a military force in a gesture of power in Somalia, but so thin a force they couldn't even back up the army rangers who were ambushed and killed in Mogadishu, and then Clinton cut and ran.
Clinton didn't make any move to contain terrorism after the Khobar Towers bombing in 1995.
After the Kenya and Tanzania bombings, Clinton only lobbed a few missiles at camps in Sudan and Afghanistan, in a minimal token gesture of Clinton military toughness, even as the generals urged Clinton that he needed to deploy troops to do the job right. As a result Al Qaida survived and grew, and gained global prestige.
Clinton also did nothing to stand up to Saddam Hussein, when Hussein wouldn't cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and when Hussein finally threw the inspectors out of Iraq entirely in 1998.
Clinton also blew several opportunities where the Sudanese and Saudi governments were prepared to hand over Bin Ladin to the U.S.
And simultaneously, Clinton signed an agreement in 1994 with North Korea that would provide that nation with a billion dollars a year in free energy, but required no nuclear inspections, that gave N. Korea 10 years to secretly develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them.
And yet Clinton was going to pursue tough legislation on terrorism? Based on 8 years of Clinton action (i.e. inaction) I seriously doubt it.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
You make some good points. Certainlly Clinton had his failings, but there's a few points you forget.
1994-Republicans take Congress and give him shit for 5 years over bin Laden being nothing more than a boogeyman.
Currently patriotic, pro-war Sean Hannity of Fox News among others brutalized Clinton for trying to "distract" America from the Lewinsky scandal and called for his impeachment. (The same Sean Hannity who said in 2003 that anyone questioning a president during wartime was guilty of treason).
2000-Clinton received warning about plots for terrorist acts for the millenium (which was actually 2001, but people thought it was 2000. remember y2k? anyway...) and he tightened security and caught them.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You make some good points. Certainlly Clinton had his failings, but there's a few points you forget.
1994-Republicans take Congress and give him shit for 5 years over bin Laden being nothing more than a boogeyman.
I followed politics pretty closely during that era. I honestly don't recall any republicans giving Clinton "shit over bin Laden" in any form.
Quote:
Currently patriotic, pro-war Sean Hannity of Fox News among others brutalized Clinton for trying to "distract" America from the Lewinsky scandal and called for his impeachment. (The same Sean Hannity who said in 2003 that anyone questioning a president during wartime was guilty of treason).
I concede that Hannity probably did brutalize Clinton (rightly or wrongly) for trying to distract America during the Lewinsky scandal. But we weren't in a war then, so I don't know how your other point applies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
You know I don't remember a single Republican complaining that Clinton didn't do enough when it came to fighting terrorism...till after 9/11. The reason why... Quote:
...The record :
Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton
President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-corporate media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition.
President Clinton:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P. ).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
...
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40 |
You can't be serious.
The very phrasing of what you quoted reveals this so-called "the record" you posted, to be a partisan spin-site.
When I clicked on your link... it'a a blog !
When you said "the record", I was expecting an excerpt from a congressional transcript, an intelligence report, or even an editorial assessment by the New York Times or Washington Post. Not even ! A blog !
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said (quoting the blog entry):
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
I thought the FBI did that.
Quote:
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P. ).
Far from the truth, Republicans have criticized Clinton for blowing several opportunities to arrest or kill Bin Ladin. As I detailed in my post above.
Quote:
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
These actions were detailed in the Road to 9-11 program. It was law enforcement that brought the terrorists in, I don't know to what degree Clinton can claim any personal responsibility for their capture.
Quote:
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
That's very funny, because the Democrats invented the blame-game regarding terror, after 9-11.
It was only after the Democrats initiated the blame-game that Republicans countered, saying many of the things blamed on Bush and Republicans were actually bungled by the Clinton administration.
Quote:
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
That begs the question: if Clinton created this stockpile, why are authorities under Bush struggling to stockpile them now?
Quote:
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
I don't doubt that Clinton did some things right regarding terrorism. But when liberal Democrats launch the crap they have toward Bush, bitterly heaping all the blame on Bush, then they should damn well expect the record to be set straight, that Clinton had many failings regarding terrorism and national security, and have no high ground from which to point fingers at Republicans.
What I recall from the Clinton years is how many lifetime Washington bureaucrats were enraged by Clinton's utter contempt for national security.
I have a huge problem with the contrasting liberal spin, that Clinton was this bold visionary on the pulse of national security, guarding it at every turn.
I find that pretty hard to reconcile with Clinton's status as a draft evader, who openly protested the Vietnam war, and the way he slashed military forces and spending once he became President.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I actually dont blame Clinton for whatever failings his administration had. I blame some of the idiots that Hillary made him surround himself with, such as: Sandy Berger (he of the stolen 9/11 documents) Madeline Albright, Jamie Gorelick and, even though I liked her as a person, Janet Reno.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40 |
Political correctness ruled the day under Clinton. I agree with you on Berger and Albright.
I also couldn't stand Donna Shalala, Jocelyn Elders, Robert Reich, and Hilary Clinton herself. All made a regular contribution to the notion of minority victimhood and a sense of entitled repayment of some kind for past wrongs. Their regularly voiced ideas contributed greatly to the fragmenting of America along ethnic lines.
Warren Christopher came across to me as a secretary of state who had no concept of how to be tough and negotiate.
I generally had a high opinion of Al Gore and his wife Tipper during those years (only after the 2000 election did I develop a contempt for Gore).
Treasury Secretary Richard Rubin was one of the stars of Clinton's administration, and I thought he did an excellent job.
Likewise, despite her mistakes as Attorney General, I thought Janet Reno was a person of integrity, who held herself accountable when something went wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Rubin and Summers were great Treasury secretaries and I'm a fiscal conservative saying that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,311 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
You can't be serious.
The very phrasing of what you quoted reveals this so-called "the record" you posted, to be a partisan spin-site.
When I clicked on your link... it'a a blog !
When you said "the record", I was expecting an excerpt from a congressional transcript, an intelligence report, or even an editorial assessment by the new York Tiomes or Washington Post. Not even !
I would point out that you presented a Clinton mini list of your own on your previous post. No link so I would assume your the source. Guess I'm not seeing the big difference. Now Blogs can be a source of misinformation (as well as dramitizations) but factually did you have a problem with what the blog presented?
Quote:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
I thought the FBI did that.
That falls into the same category as Bush capturing Saddam or any terrorist attacks thwarted post 9/11 IMHO.
Quote:
Quote:
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P. ).
Far from the truth, Republicans have criticized Clinton for blowing several opportunities to arrest or kill Bin Ladin. As I detailed in my post above.
No, some Republicans criticised Clinton right after the bombing attempts for Saddam & Osama. Arlan Specter was one of them. It's more a case of twisting events to criticise Clinton post 9/11. Case in point, the one incident in "Path" where you see Osama walking in the background while the Clinton Administration shuts down the operation to get him had in reallity been called off weeks before by George Tennent.
Quote:
Quote:
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
These actions were detailed in the Road to 9-11 program.
The conservative version not based on the 9/11 report. The version Rush Limbaugh praised for it's accuracy.
Quote:
Quote:
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
That's very funny, because the Democrats invented the blame-game regarding terror, after 9-11. It was only after the Democrats initiated the blame-game, that Republicans countered that many of the things blamed on Bush and Republicans were actually bungled by the Clinton administration.
I don't agree. Republicans had spent 8 yrs trying to get Clinton. Blaming him for 9/11 wasn't a start but simply a continuation of what they had been doing all along.
Quote:
Quote:
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
That begs the question: if Clinton created this stoickpile, why are authorities under Bush struggling to stockpile them now?
Not an expert but I don't think those things have an indefinite shelf life. And are you mixing it up with the bird flu where Bush is playing catch up because he was slow to act?
Quote:
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
...
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,635 Likes: 40 |
Despite your re-spin, I already answered your above questions, MEM. Repeating them doesn't make your answers any more factual. The blog you quoted is emotionally charged and far from objective, and uses selective omission to paint an overly favorable glowing view of Clinton's actions against Bin Ladin.
It amuses the hell out of me, the way liberals just keep getting their digs in, regarding The Path to 9/11.
This latest offering from an editor for the Washington Post opinion section:
Where were all these liberals when Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 911 ?
Oh, that's right: uncritically lavishing praise on it.
It's also amusing that liberals (at least when it's a drama that they perceive as overly critical of the Clinton administration) seem to not comprehend that a drama is not intended to be completely objective, despite that Path to 9/11 was very upfront about it being a dramatic narrative, and that even at 5 hours, composite characters and other storytelling devices were used to move things along.
Liberals are freaked out that a "docudrama" was not completely accurate to every detail. Where were these liberals when Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 documentary was released ?
Oh. Yeah.
Again, praising it lavishly.
Historical distortions, even in a documentary, are apparently insignificant when the facts are skewed against Republicans.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
