Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

it seems abc will be airing a right wing backed drama-documentary about 9/11...and the conclusion......its clinton's fault. they even go out of their way to lie about certain events, or just make them up entirely. the timing is impecable as well, since elections are in 2 months.

here are some accusations/fantasies laid out on scarborough:


(Copy and Paste this link)

movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-ABC-911-movie.mov

I tryed it, and it did not work. And yes, I did copy and paste.

fixed

There's something very interesting in this kind of tactic. It's almost a cut and run tactic, so despised and laughed at by proponents of this administration.

I have no doubt that huge mistakes were made by the Clinton administration. The fact that 9/11 took place at all indicates a huge failure of US government policies for the last 30 years. However, according to whitehouse.gov the following information about Bush is pretty accurate and indisputable:



Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that indicate that his administration was in charge for about 9 months before this happened?

others had this to say:











(^The same guy that is in charge of the Department of Homeland Security I might add)



All Republican members of the current administration admitting that they dropped the ball. A ball that had been in their court for 9 months at that point.

Well Clinton did have the oppourtunity.

And in July 2001, a Fed here in Phoenix had advanced knowledge and failed to act.

Things like 9-11 dont happen because of a simple screw up. Its multiple events compounded over an extended period of time. You can blame Reagan for effing up the Middle East...and the Soviets for invading Afganistan...and Bush I for Gulf War I...

9-11's history will continue to be a political football for at least a decade or too, while Bush is in office, it's political uses will NOT be diminished one bit.

We just need to tell them A-rabs to quit hatin' on us.

Techiniclly it kind of is Clinton's fault

He could have had Osama killed after the attacks on the U.S.S Colt, but didnt.

Of course, to be fair Bush could have also gone after him when he got into office.

However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.

Originally posted by clap
We just need to tell them A-rabs to quit hatin' on us.

I think the best way to stop terrorism is the pull out the roots of terrorism.

A lot of places (Iran, Pakistan, ect..) are made up of normal people who dont want anything to do with these terrorist groups.

Of course if stunts like the wall in isreal keep getting pulled then terrorism is only going to increase.

We cannot punish the normal people for what the terrorists have done. Rather we should embrace them and show them why we are right and the terrorists are wrong.

Of course this and military action will eventually end radicalist islamic terrorism

Originally posted by Grimm22
Techiniclly it kind of is Clinton's fault

He could have had Osama killed after the attacks on the U.S.S Colt, but didnt.

Of course, to be fair Bush could have also gone after him when he got into office.

However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.


Well if we are playing pass the responsibility I would like to take part of the blame for voting Bush in his first term, what was I thinking, it's my fault really.

Originally posted by Soleran
Well if we are playing pass the responsibility I would like to take part of the blame for voting Bush in his first term, what was I thinking, it's my fault really.

Because Al Gore would have done a great job right?

He's more concerned about saving trees than human lives

Originally posted by Grimm22
Techiniclly it kind of is Clinton's fault

He could have had Osama killed after the attacks on the U.S.S Colt, but didnt.

Of course, to be fair Bush could have also gone after him when he got into office.

However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.

And if we go back further, it's the USA's fault for not listening to Churchill's fears concerning the Soviet Union, and allowing the creation of the Eastern Bloc. And then, it's Hitler's fault for allying with Stalin and invading Poland. And then, it's Chamberlain's fault for appeasing Hitler...

The list goes on. Dealing with immediate facts, the only people you can really blame are those who had information on the attacks and didn't act on it. Even then, we can't know how fallible their information was.

Originally posted by Trickster
And if we go back further, it's the USA's fault for not listening to Churchill's fears concerning the Soviet Union, and allowing the creation of the Eastern Bloc. And then, it's Hitler's fault for allying with Stalin and invading Poland. And then, it's Chamberlain's fault for appeasing Hitler...

The list goes on. Dealing with immediate facts, the only people you can really blame are those who had information on the attacks and didn't act on it. Even then, we can't know how fallible their information was.

Heck we could go on playing the blame game for hours...days even

Originally posted by Grimm22
I think the best way to stop terrorism is the pull out the roots of terrorism.

You don't really have to pull out the roots on something if you just spray some round-up on it. Complete subjugation is the way to go. Keep 'em so occupied about their own country that they don't have nary a time for attacking ours.

Originally posted by Soleran
Well if we are playing pass the responsibility I would like to take part of the blame for voting Bush in his first term, what was I thinking, it's my fault really.

Not at all. We are talking less democrat v. republican and more incompotent government. Just like I said in my post, You can point the finger at our government, not our political parties. However, when you voted for Bush in his first election, you did so because he said that he would be tough on issues like national defense and homeland security. 9/11 really shows that, huh? 9 months of his administration and none of the intelligence reports were read or given to the right people. The daily intelligence report given to teh president was ignored when it mentioned the very real threat. Even Cheney said that in the quote I listed. Had it been handled properly. Properly being key there.

So it has less to do with republicans and more to do with the bloated political beauracracy the senate and our government officials have spent the last 7 years building up even more. If we could get officials and politicians to actually do what we need them to do, then we'd be able to prevent things like 9/11 from happening. And we have the power to do that, but we don't. As a rule, people in this country have no interest in speaking up. And that's because so many people in this country get divided by issues like poverty, race, religion, social programs, sexual orientation, etc. The whole basis for our political system is telling us how we differ from each other, rather than what we have in common....and that's an abusive government. And this administration is not only as abusive, but now they've started doing it to teh people of other countries as well.

Originally posted by PVS
it seems abc will be airing a right wing backed drama-documentary about 9/11...and the conclusion......its clinton's fault. they even go out of their way to lie about certain events, or just make them up entirely. the timing is impecable as well, since elections are in 2 months.

Sadly, this is not surprising.


Originally posted by Grimm22
However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.

Or you could just look at the U.S.'s foreign policy as the the cause, and hold various administrations responsible for compliance through neglect.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Techiniclly it kind of is Clinton's fault

He could have had Osama killed after the attacks on the U.S.S Colt, but didnt.

Of course, to be fair Bush could have also gone after him when he got into office.

However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.

Not really, and if it was such a big deal to you...you would remeber the the USS Cole was attacked.

Many people have blame.

Honestly, when people believe that crap about Bush being behind 9/11 its ridiculous.

Did people in the administration KNOW about 9/11? Maybe, thats a possibiblity.

But, saying the government was BEHIND 9/11 is proposterous

Wait...why is it so out of the question?

Originally posted by Grimm22
Techiniclly it kind of is Clinton's fault

He could have had Osama killed after the attacks on the U.S.S Colt, but didnt.

Of course, to be fair Bush could have also gone after him when he got into office.

However if we go far enough its the Soviet Union's fault.

Its funny. Really funny. Clinton could have killed Bin Laden after the U.S.S. Cole.

Considering that Bush and Co. have launched one of the US's more sizable military operations of late aimed at "terrorism" and A.Q. and yet haven't been able to kill Bin Laden. It's not like Clinton had him over for tea one night and when some adviser said "And after the Entree we'll shoot him in the head" and Clinton went "No we wont, I don't think we need to Kill him."

And really there seems to have been a fair bit of evidence Bush and co. were told in the months prior to 9/11 that terrorists were planning to use planes (oops, forgot, that doesn't count as it is was just a broad warning, nothing specific.) Really the fact is it happened on Bush's watch.

check this out as well:

movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-ABC-Be.mov

(interview with Ben-Veniste of the 9/11 commission, who points out the complete falsehoods of this history revision)


also, it seems that this crockumantary will be used as education material,
shipped to schools and used as study material.
this is neocon scum propaganda at its finest.

aaahhh...the good ol' blame game

why not blame the Germans...they were monitoring the Hamburg cell that planned and carried out the 9/11 attack back in 1997 and did nothing

plus...the Germans are used to getting the blame for stuff so they wont mind

You know whose fault it is? Ours, for not listening to Winston Churchill and steamrolling over Russia right after WWII.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You know whose fault it is? Ours, for not listening to Winston Churchill and steamrolling over Russia right after WWII.

well, it doesnt matter because shortly children in school will be taught this revised history in class as per curiculum. its being treated as a historical document. how do you feel about this?

Well if you want to say that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened then also consider this...

Memebers of FDR's administration knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened.

Honestly if Bush did know about the attacks he probobly thought Al Queda was a kind of rice

It's all Charles Martel's fault for beating the Muslim Armies at Tours several Hundred years ago.

Did Bush know a Terrorist Attack MIGHT have come, and was possible? Yes
Could he have stopped it from happening? Doubtful, the plans were set before he was even in office
Could Clinton have stopped it? Yes, instead of going after them while they were weak, he shot a few Cruise Missiles at them

None of this matters anymore, people made mistakes, it's the present now, we have to stop these Nutjobs before they kill us rather than dealing with who is responsible for it, this can happen AFTER they're dead

Why Bush declared war on iraq...

He mistook Iraq for Iran, the REAL threat

Of course Iraq is still better off without Saddam

The level of your stupidity is truly astonishing.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Why Bush declared war on iraq...

He mistook Iraq for Iran, the REAL threat

Of course Iraq is still better off without Saddam

hang

Originally posted by imaqtpie
The level of your stupidity is truly astonishing.

Originally posted by imaqtpie
The level of your stupidity is truly astonishing.

This coming from a guy that laughed at Steve Irwin's death

And arent you banned?!?

Originally posted by PVS
well, it doesnt matter because shortly children in school will be taught this revised history in class as per curiculum. its being treated as a historical document. how do you feel about this?
When I was in elementary school, my dad would go through my history books and point all the revisionist history. I think this is barely a drop in the bucket.

Also, I'll wager that they'll give more of an overview of it rather than saying that anyone is to blame.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I think this is barely a drop in the bucket.

i highly disagree because this "drop in the bucket" directly effects short and long term political events (people are frikin idiots and will see this as 'history')
when has history suddenly been rewritten for the sake of bipartisan politics, and in the span of 5 years in order to effect election outcome in about 2 months? i dont know...i get the feeling that if this was a leftist ploy with the same impact potential you would be barking like mad about it.

If we go far enough, it's Mohammed's mother's fault for getting knocked up.

Damn, I wish that ***** was infertile sometimes.

Bill O'reilly is against the movie.

Originally posted by PVS
it seems abc will be airing a right wing backed drama-documentary about 9/11...and the conclusion......its clinton's fault. they even go out of their way to lie about certain events, or just make them up entirely. the timing is impecable as well, since elections are in 2 months.

here are some accusations/fantasies laid out on scarborough:


(Copy and Paste this link)

movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-ABC-911-movie.mov Oh my god.

Scarborough is in England.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bill O'reilly is against the movie.

if so thats a smart move, considering the lights have already been switched on and the roaches are scattering. its best for any neocon spokesman to run from this like its a ticking bomb. didnt say he's a smart man, mind you. just that it would be a smart move.

Originally posted by PVS
i highly disagree because this "drop in the bucket" directly effects short and long term political events (people are frikin idiots and will see this as 'history')
when has history suddenly been rewritten for the sake of bipartisan politics, and in the span of 5 years in order to effect election outcome in about 2 months? i dont know...i get the feeling that if this was a leftist ploy with the same impact potential you would be barking like mad about it.
Michael Moore already happened, and I didn't much care.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Michael Moore already happened, and I didn't much care.

a poor parallel. micheal moore is a private filmmaker, not backed by any organisation. his 'documentaries' are not passed of as historical educational material. although he attempts to impact political events, particularly elections, he is not backed by the administration. and please, ffs, dont try to tell me that karl rove doesnt have a hand in this or i'll laugh in your face.

the path to 9/11 is being shown in the UK too...frankly it looks nothing more than a poor dramatisation that is trying to get the jump on the WTC film

there have been a ton of documentaries on it...most of them poor...the exception being the one by the 2 french guys who were the ones who caught the footage of the 1st plane hitting the towers

I honestly still don't understand why ABC would make a fictional documentary to be shown the day before and 9-11.

well, it seems the entire right wont touch it with a 40 foot pole, now. not a peep when abc/disney sent copies to right wing bloggers yet refused to send copies to clinton, albright, etc....people who they were actually slandering. once its all exposed, then they turn against it. but whatever, im glad this revisionist history and blatant pro-right propaganda labeled as fact was caught and put to a stop (so we can assume, but not say definately until we actually see it.)

Originally posted by PVS
a poor parallel. micheal moore is a private filmmaker, not backed by any organisation. his 'documentaries' are not passed of as historical educational material. although he attempts to impact political events, particularly elections, he is not backed by the administration. and please, ffs, dont try to tell me that karl rove doesnt have a hand in this or i'll laugh in your face.
I know, I was being facetious .

Originally posted by PVS
well, it seems the entire right wont touch it with a 40 foot pole, now. not a peep when abc/disney sent copies to right wing bloggers yet refused to send copies to clinton, albright, etc....people who they were actually slandering. once its all exposed, then they turn against it. but whatever, im glad this revisionist history and blatant pro-right propaganda labeled as fact was caught and put to a stop (so we can assume, but not say definately until we actually see it.)

But it wasn't "revisionist"....It was "fictional"

Originally posted by PVS
a poor parallel. micheal moore is a private filmmaker, not backed by any organisation. his 'documentaries' are not passed of as historical educational material. although he attempts to impact political events, particularly elections, he is not backed by the administration. and please, ffs, dont try to tell me that karl rove doesnt have a hand in this or i'll laugh in your face.

Micheal Moore is just a fat piece of crap.

He defines everything wrong with liberals.

I mean if you look at some of the stuff he has said including this...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a54/Grimm22/BowlingforFallujah-X.gif


I mean I can understand people being against the war in Iraq and all, but Moore just said he supports the people who kill the brave men and women in the U.S. Army?!?!

Oh and Farinheit 9/11 for the most part was just a bunch of poorly edited crap.

You don't understand the situation.

You have to think out of your American box.

Ther is nothing wrong with liberalism.

The Iraqis should make their own government, not the one we assigned to them. It took us 11 years to get our constitution...we expect them to have a mssive revolution while under military occupation? Its thier country, not ours.

Plus...the US has such a great historry of supproting governments...like the Iranian Shaw and Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by Alliance
You don't understand the situation.

You have to think out of your American box.

Ther is nothing wrong with liberalism.

The Iraqis should make their own government, not the one we assigned to them. It took us 11 years to get our constitution...we expect them to have a mssive revolution while under military occupation? Its thier country, not ours.

Plus...the US has such a great historry of supproting governments...like the Iranian Shaw and Saddam Hussein.

Its true, we do have a crappy history of installing governments, usually because we do it to our own advantage.

However in Iraq, they run their own government. We have little to nothing to do with it.

not true...they "wrote their policies"

Democracies do NOT form under foreign militaries...or any military for that matter. The Iraqi government does not yet have the ability to govern.

Iraq is still a nation because the US military is there. And the US has everything to do with it. Our military can act as a shield, but it won't make the Iraqis or their government stronger. The Iraquis have to do this themselves.

Originally posted by Grimm22
*pointless off topic brain fart* ok then

Originally posted by Alliance
not true...they "wrote their policies"

Democracies do NOT form under foreign militaries...or any military for that matter. The Iraqi government does not yet have the ability to govern.

Iraq is still a nation because the US military is there. And the US has everything to do with it. Our military can act as a shield, but it won't make the Iraqis or their government stronger. The Iraquis have to do this themselves.

Thats what we are doing right now

The majority of Iraqi forces are ready and are begining to take over

Exactly. Its all a big

I was off work that morning when my mom woke me up screaming war war! I think the date was selected to humiliate Americans since it suggests the emergency number that is used daily...tomorrow that is.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Thats what we are doing right now

The majority of Iraqi forces are ready and are begining to take over

quick question, wtf is the "" supposed to accomplish?
it makes you look like a dick. not that im calling you a dick,
just that you look like one when you do that.

well, it seems abc/disney/rove lied and they aired all their smearing lies anyway.

the next installment will show a scene where bush learns of what happened and throws his copy of "my pet goat" to the floor and screams "YOU MANIACS!!! DAMN YOU!!!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!!!!!!"

That's from Planet of the Apes

thank you, oh supreme master of the obvious

Umm people, it had disclaimers, this is Hollywood, it's meant to be both entertaining/informative, they even said some scenes were PURE FICTION(yes I watched parts of it). It's not a big deal

Not to point out the obvious, but several people have said that the US should not be involved in the creation of a foreign country's constitution.

Does anyone remember Japan pre-US occupation? How about Japan post-US occupation? I seem to remember Japan being a bigotted, war hungry, killing machine until the US came in and wrote a new constitution.

Maybe that's just conservative revisionism, though.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
It's not a big deal

yes it is.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10813&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=3456

heres an essay of a survivor...Adam Mayblum...

F*ck Kieth Olberman.


I'm curious Paul, did you watch it?

It makes Condelezza Rice and George W. Bush, not to mention George Tennet, former head of CIA and Bush's own leader of the Department of Homeland Security, look just as much at fault, and just as much a bunch of clueless f*cks.



The 9/11 debate is fine in any other threads, and should continue, but for now on, lets keep this thread to the mini-series, particularly to those who saw it.


Grade: B+


It was good. I didn't come away with an overwhelming hate of any Democrats, nor feel any blame for them in particular.

It was our system as a whole that failed, and bureaucracy, red tape, and political correctness (on both sides of the aisles) that was the true "path to 9/11".


From the NY division of the F.B.I. which had warnings about the men involved in the WTC bombing of '93 (and were even under F.B.I. surveillance at one point) from an Egyptian colonel in the U.S., to our disregard of CIA field agents requests to aid and fund the Northern Alliance to strike the Taliban (something Reagan DID do when they fought communist Russia), to warning Pakistan about missiles meant for Bin Laden heading over their airspace (whether or not it was Secretary Albright personally, or not makes no difference since we did warn them), to President Clinton not wanting to strike back after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole because he was only in office for another 3 months, to President Bush not doing anything about it either, to Condelezza Rice basically telling Richard Clarke (head of anti-terrorism) to take a hike, to the CIA having info of "attacks inside the U.S., in aviation, hijackings" and not warning airlines because they needed specifics, .........


Man.

We screwed up, royally.

I think, in a sense, that we deserved it.

(not the thousands of innocent office workers and brave firemen and police, but the idiots in charge of keeping all those people safe.)


After the first nights broadcast, ABC news had a few of the men involved to point out some of the discrepancies (and some of the truths) and one that stuck with me was that a general said :

"We knew where the al-Queida training camps were, but it was deemed a waste of a million dollar missile to blow up a jungle gym camp."

Where desert fools shoot at target ranges and practice hand-to-hand combat..... he didn't say that part, but it's reasonable to assume that somebody did.

If only they knew that those hand-to-hand techniques with blades were what would gain a few men the chance to strike our country in the worst way in the last 100 years.


On a personal note, I found very tragic the story of John P. Reilly, the character played by Harvey Kietel, who worked with the F.B.I. for over 25 years (spending the last 10 dealing with terrorists, bin Laden in particular) and left due to disagreements and frustration at his efforts to get bin Laden going nowhere.

Only to take a job as head of security for the WTC and be killed on 9/11.

Thats f*cked up.

Almost as much as how our government officials wouldn't grant a FISA warrant to look in Moussari's laptop, but the Philippine cops just had the balls to take Ramsey Youseff's and get his info.

(there's that useful FISA program again, there.)

Anyway, the film left me saddened and seriously pissed off (only a little at al-Quieda) and hoping that we learn something from our past.



Based on the ending, which shows that of the 41 recommendations that the 9/11 commission made, our report card in Dec. of '05 had five 'F' 's and 13 'D' 's (in airport security, ports/border security, immigration) and one 'A' (stopping terrorist funding) I am doubtful that we have.


As for the films accuracy, or more to the point, its "LIES", I'd like for anybody who's seen it to post what EXACTLY was false.

Not the conversations between officials, because obviously we'll never have a decent record of those, but of the time-line of events, of attacks, decisions, and responses.

Guess I'm done, anybody else who saw it wanna chime in.....?

"to President Clinton not wanting to strike back after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole because he was only in office for another 3 months"

a lie. just a flatout lie. clinton ordered airstrikes on suspected terrorist targets immediately after the bombing of the u.s.s. cole. he was then accused of "wagging the dog", by conservatives and liberals alike.

im not trying to make clinton out to be not guilty of negligence, but please stop posting lies.

Well, there you go, that's one.

I'm not deliberately posting lies, just what was in the film.


There is a scene of a meeting with Secretary Albright, Tennet, some generals and such immediately after the bombing of the Cole.

The idea of a missile strike is brought up, but seen as ineffective. One of the generals says that they need boots on the ground, but an invasion, a war, has never been started in the last 3 months of any Presidents final term, somebody says, and it also might look like a stunt to help Gore.

The film then skips to Condelezza Rice and George W. making asses of themselves, and doesn't say what course of action was taken.

I assumed that there was none, so blame me, not the film.

Although smart editing would have included such a strike, if only to show that it didn't do anything and that the general was right.

While not a lie, the timing and editing of the film led to my conclusion which was wrong.

So good catch PVS, I'm a little ignorant of the facts in some parts (those years from '99 to the beginning of '01 was when I was involved in a bunch of personal bullshit) and didn't know that Clinton ordered a strike.
Good for him.

I'll tell you one thing, while I'm still a Bush republican (no surprise to you there), I have a whole lot more issues with him and our government as a whole after seeing this film.

Guess if it was supposed to be pro-conservative, it failed.

Did you see it?

um no, that was part of your assessment of actual events. nice try though, ill give you a check-minus for effort, which is much better than a zero

Again, there were Disclaimers, but I guess that means nothing to you, especially if you didn't watch it.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Again, there were Disclaimers, but I guess that means nothing to you, especially if you didn't watch it.

i watched half of it, and a disclaimer means nothing.
but i guess if they made a movie about bush ordering the attacks on the wtc, with a boldface disclaimer at the beginning of the film, you'd be cool with that.

:edit: oh shit...that was deano bait...forget i said it

Originally posted by PVS
i watched half of it, and a disclaimer means nothing.
but i guess if they made a movie about bush ordering the attacks on the wtc, with a boldface disclaimer at the beginning of the film, you'd be cool with that.

Want to know the differance? The film is about a Fake Event for Conspiracy Theorists, Path to 9/11 was based on fact with added Hollywood. They attack both sides, kindive like South Park

Edit: Damn it! I responded too quick

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Want to know the differance? The film is about a Fake Event for Conspiracy Theorists, Path to 9/11 was based on fact with added Hollywood. They attack both sides, kindive like South Park

Edit: Damn it! I responded too quick

no. its either a documentary or its fiction. you cant selectively condone blatant lies, just as long as they suit your pallet. at best, even by your odd sensabilities, this fiction is extremely tasteless. perhaps if it was leftist slanted fiction, you would react differently, like if michael moore was to produce a drama...based on real events.

Originally posted by PVS
no. its either a documentary or its fiction. you cant selectively condone blatant lies, just as long as they suit your pallet. at best, even by your odd sensabilities, this fiction is extremely tasteless. perhaps if it was leftist slanted fiction, you would react differently, like if michael moore was to produce a drama...based on real events.

The things in the film were a Skewed version of what happened, Clinton is still thought of as backing down, and again, Bush was attacked too

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The things in the film were a Skewed version of what happened, Clinton is still thought of as backing down

he ordered immediate airstrikes on suspected terrorist targets in afghanistan, which is fact, and which you have ignored. yet you still say that he "backed down". this is the danger of ignorance/prejudice/partisan encouraging misinformation touted as fact*





















*...tagged with an ineffectual disclaimer